Canadian Conservative Party Votes to Accept Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

VANCOUVER(National Post)– Conservative delegates voted overwhelmingly Saturday at their national convention to effectively accept same-sex marriage, a move Tory MPs and leadership candidates said modernizes their party and sends an important message to Canadians.

In a vote of 1,036-462, Conservative members – following a passionate debate – voted to take a neutral position on marriage and no longer define it as “the union of one man and one woman.”

The change also removes a longstanding policy statement that said Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage.

Rural Manitoba Conservative MP Ted Falk said the proposed policy change was “not about inclusiveness,” but was instead an “attack on our values and principles.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Striving to bring you the news without compromise and with Christ in focus, we press on despite recent changes in Facebook and Google's algorithms, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational site revenue. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News Network supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed?May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

bill@19D

A good move by the conservative party. The idea that the conservative party should continue to be against marriage equality is not at all in line with what the conservative party should be about. Marriage should be encouraged and that includes marriage for same sex couples. As a side note the use of quotes around the word marriage in the headline is frankly juvenile. We are talking about marriage and placing quotes around the word does not change the fact that those marriages are real and valid.

Mark0H

Great, just like the SCOTUS in America:
You can no more “redefine marriage” than you can decree that a circle is a triangle.
These degenerates think that changing laws can make them feel like normal human beings. Not a chance.

Jalapeno

Most people don’t really care if a few people still refuse to accept them as married. The key point is equal LEGAL treatment for a legal contract.

The Last Trump

Too bad God has jurisdiction over the courts of men. 🙁

Jalapeno

Shouldn’t it have never been made legal then?

The Last Trump

Funny.
That’s what HE said concerning the times we live in too!
But HE nailed it!
Man is He on top of this prophecy thing.

Jalapeno

Okay, so there was no authority used to restrict the legal concept.

Guess it is up to the courts then.

The Last Trump

For now.
“Thy kingdom COME”!
Remember?
Things are gonna change. And wrongs will be set right again.
Just like He said. 🙂

Jalapeno

Good luck with that.

So far, all evidence leads to the contrary.

The Last Trump

🙂
Of course it does!
So cute! Another truth denier! Just never gets old around here.

Jalapeno

Sure, I’m sure all that evidence provided will make an appearance some day.

The Last Trump

Actually no.
Folks don’t usually find stuff they’re not actually looking for.
Go figure.
You looked for magic. You found magic.
Now you run with it Jalepeno dude! You don’t look silly at all.

Ronald Carter

You’re quite correct. He doesn’t look silly.

The Last Trump

“Ronald”.
Please stop following me around and stalking me. You continue to be banned and re-spawn only to resume exactly where you left off.
Find someone else to harass or I will be forced to report you.
Last warning.

Ronald Carter

You have been told over and over that I am not someone from your past. I have never been banned and you’re going to have to deal with your paranoia on your own. This does not mean you have carte blanche to bully others. Respect is a two-way street. I’m not stalking you. Any more baseless accusations from you and you will be reported. Last warning, sir.

The Last Trump

Flagged.
I asked you to stop. You just won’t leave me alone.
For the last time, goodbye.

Ronald Carter

Don’t hold your breath. I’ve been waiting weeks for him to provide some.

LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

Amen. Praise God.

Theodore Fenton

I’ve never known a married couple seeking a divorce to head to their church instead of a court of law.

The Last Trump

Yeah, the smart ones go there first so court isn’t necessary.
Couples that pray together STAY together! 🙂

Theodore Fenton

Yeah, right, works every time.

Theodore Fenton

Actually, judges have that.

The Last Trump

?
Looks like that went completely over your head.

Theodore Fenton

Something certainly went over someone’s head.

bill@19D

Civil marriage is defined by man and thus the definition can and does change. The idea that the civil definition of marriage can not change is demonstrably false and disproved by the very existence of legally married same sex couples.

Amos Moses

Any postmodern idea can be changed by anybody at any time because ………….. IT HAS NO REAL MEANING …………… and so “gay marriage” …………….. has no real meaning ……………….. see how that works ……………. see what i did there ……

bill@19D

Only marriage can NOT be changed by anyone at any time, rather the change must happen via a change to the law and that change to the law must happen via a public vote, legislative action, or court ruling. this is not to say that it has no real meaning. the fact that the meaning of something can change over time certainly does not mean that it has no meaning, rather it just means that change can happen and the meaning can shift if or when the law changes. so yes same sex marriage does in fact have real meaning, it gets its meaning and its legitimacy via the law.

Amos Moses

“Only marriage can NOT be changed by anyone at any time,”

Obviously not true because obviously ………….. it has ……….

bill@19D

Perhaps you should read the entire post before responding. yes marriage has changed over time but that change has not come about by anyone at any time, rather the change happens when approved channels for making changes to the law make those changes. For example I can not go out and change who is allowed to get married however the legislature could propose a change to the law and then pass it and then get is signed by the executive and then get the law changed. so can change happen yes. can it happen by anyone at any time? no.

Amos Moses

“yes marriage has changed over time but that change has not come about by anyone at any time’

They were making the same arguments in Soddom ………………….. there is nothing new here ………. law does not change what God has created ………….. men did not create it ………. and men do not have any authority to redefine it ……………. by law or in any other manner ………..

bill@19D

God did not create civil marriage, man did. The government is not saying what God views as marriage or what the church blesses as marriage, but rather what couples can get married under the law. you are wrongly conflating religious and civil definitions of marriage here and that is the source of the problem. they are different and when you recognize them as different it is easy to see how the law can let gay couples get married while the church restricts marriage to only heterosexual couples. but yes, man most certainly does have authority over civil marriage and changes to it.

Amos Moses

“God did not create civil marriage, man did.”

God created marriage …………… man appropriated it ………… or misappropriated it ……. and man still has no authority to redefine what he did not create ……………

bill@19D

Marriage means more then one thing. It differs depending on who is the one recognizing the marriage. Churches may different in who they will marry. Nations may differ in who they will marry. whoever is granting the recognition of the marriage has the authority over defining it. this is reality, these are the facts of the matter. bottom line there is not only 1 owner of “marriage” rather there are multiple authorities over what is marriage and this is why the definition of marriage differs and is not identical across religions and nations and time.

Amos Moses

“Marriage means more then one thing. It differs depending on who is the one recognizing the marriage. ”

No…………… marriage means only ONE thing ………………. anything you or anyone wants to add to that meaning is just nonsense …………… it is death ………….. it is the embrace of death …………

This style ten and six

You would be taken more seriously if you could write a proper sentence.

Amos Moses

ahhhhhhh …………. never mind ………….. you are not worth it ……

bill@19D

If marriage meant only one thing then we would not have multiple definitions of it. you are imagining that there is only one authority that grants the status of marriage however this is not the case. it is an observable fact that there are multiple authorities that grant the status of marriage and they can have different rules for what constitutes a marriage. attempting to deny that reality is just as pointless as claiming that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth.

Amos Moses

“If marriage meant only one thing then we would not have multiple definitions of it.”

You may ………. we ………. whomever that is ………… do not ………… marriage has one meaning ………….. it has for millenia …………. calling a thing with four sides a triangle …… may sound cool, and “with it” and trendy ……………………. but it is still a lie …… and no matter how many people agree to a lie ……………… STILL A LIE …………. and those that believe it are liars ………….

bill@19D

Calling marriage marriage can never be a lie if those who are calling it marriage have the authority to define marriage. this would be like saying the speed limit on the road was 25 thus to say that the speed limit is now 30 is a lie becasue it used to be 25. it depends on who says the speed limit is now 30. if the driver just claims it the police are not going to listen becasue the driver has no authority to change the speed limit. but if the law did indeed change then the speed limit on the road has changed.

Here man has defined civil marriage and thus can make changes to civil marriage and who is able to marry. this is the reality of the situation. this is not to say that God has no role in recognizing marriage but it is to say that marriage in the eyes of God is not the same thing as marriage as recognized by the law.

Amos Moses

“Calling marriage marriage can never be a lie ”

Calling homosexuals who think they are married “married” ……………… IS a lie ………

bill@19D

As I have said multiple times now no it is not. They do not think they are married, they are married becasue the law says that they are married and the law has the authority to make that declaration. Man creates and defines civil marriage and thus we can and do change it. this is reality, it is not a lie it is reality. you may not like it, you may think it is wrong, but none of that means that it is a lie. you have confused what you think marriage SHOULD be to what marriage CAN be.

Amos Moses

“As I have said multiple times now no it is not. .”

Sorry, but yes it is …………….. your postmodern interpretation to the contrary ………….

” They do not think they are married, they are married becasue the law says that they are married and the law has the authority to make that declaration.”

The “law” is in contradiction to Gods law and common sense ……………. and their “marriage” is imaginary and a lie ……. no matter how many people buy into the lie …………. or whom buys into the lie ……………

bill@19D

and once again the law does not need to be in accordance with Gods law to be valid. God can say that something is a sin while the law makes the same thing legal. you can deny that and say it is a lie all you want but the only one imagining things here is you.

then again if these same sex marriages are in fact just imaginary and not real then it would hardly seem worth the attention you pay to the subject. Is it honestly worth your time to fight agasint something that you do not believe even exists? if indeed you believe what you are saying it seems strange indeed that you would even care. the fact that you care what the conservative party in Canada has to say about what the law says about marriage tells me that you know that what the law says about marriage matters.

Amos Moses

“and once again the law does not need to be in accordance with Gods law to be valid. ”

Yes it does or it violates the duty of government and then that government needs not be obeyed … because then government becomes a harbor for evil …………. and not a terror to evil ………….. and then you have chaos on all levels ………

You will either serve God ….. or the tyranny of men ………… there is no other alternative ……

bill@19D

okay so given that would you then say that the US should pass laws making it illegal to worship any God other then the God of the bible? should the US pass Blasphemy laws? should the US pass laws governing what people and businesses are able to do on the Sabbath?

Amos Moses

“US should pass laws making it illegal to worship any God other then the God of the bible? ”
Not what i said …… learn to parse ………

bill@19D

you just said that the law must be in accordance with Gods will. Do you contest that it is Gods will that we not worship any gods other then Him or that we not Blaspheme the God of the Bible or that we honor the Sabbath and keep it Holy? If those things are all the will of God and you say that the law must be in accordance with Gods will then it also fallow that the law must pass laws on those three points. If not then you admit that it is not the place of the law to enforce biblical morality.

Edward MacGuire

Same-sex marriage has been lawful in Canada since 2005.
This is strictly a policy change by the Conservative Party and has nothing whatsoever to do with changes to the law.
Same-sex marriage is not an issue in Canada and the change to the Conservative policy reflects that.

TheKingOfRhye

Our own Republican Party, or at least some members of it, should take note of that.

The Last Trump

People are certainly free to believe what they wish. But God’s Word changes not.
A valid marriage in His eyes includes one man and one woman who can actually procreate as they were biologically designed to, and form a family. Nothing will ever change that.

bill@19D

This is not about what God defines marriage as but what the law and government defines marriage as. The two can and do differ. So even if we do say that God only recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman that does not mean that the conservative party should seek to limit marriage in that way in the law

Amos Moses

Sorry,,,, but the government does not over rule God ………….. so no ……… but the government might be your god ……………

bill@19D

I did not say that the government rules over God. If that’s what I was saying then I would also be saying that the church must define marriage as the government does but I did not say this. rather the government and God are independent of each other. the government can define marriage in one way while at the same time the church says that God has a more narrow view of marriage. the problem and the violation of freedom happens when people try to force one narrow religious understanding of marriage on everyone via the civil law.

Amos Moses

“rather the government and God are independent of each other.”

No, the are not and never were ……………..

bill@19D

oh so your going to claim that we live in a theocracy then? unless you are living in a theocracy or under religious law then in fact the government and God are independent from each other. By independent I mean that the government can make things legal even if God would say it is a sin.

you also need to deal with the problem of which idea of god would the government align itself with? the moment you try to make government and God one and the same you can kiss any idea of religious freedom or freedom in general goodbye. look at the nations in the world who are under religious law or that are theocracies and you will see that they are all among the least free nations in the world. why? becasue the imposition of religious rules as law is ALWAYS going to be restrictive.

Amos Moses

“oh so your going to claim that we live in a theocracy then?”

It is a theocracy ……….. always has been ……….. what it comes down to is ……… who is being called god …… and in most countrys …………. including this one ……….. it is satan ….

Now satan is still subject to God …………. satan is on Gods leash …………… but it is still no less a theocracy …………. and God is in control of ALL of them ………….

bill@19D

If that’s how you want to think about it then fine, but that has ZERO bearing on how the nations are governed or how laws are being passed. at the end of the day the point is that the civil marriage law and what the Church recognizes as marriage can and does differ. If you are going to make a religious argument about what God sees as marriage that is all well and good if the Church is the one debating what to recognize as marriage but it lacks reliance when talking about what the civil law on marriage should be. the conservative party in Canada was not voting about what a Church should think marriage is, rather they were voting on their policy in regards to the civil law. thus that is the topic at hand and that is what was relevant to their decision making.

Amos Moses

“If that’s how you want to think about it then fine, but that has ZERO bearing on how the nations are governed or how laws are being passed. ”

Worldview determines political view and law ……………… so wrong on that point …….. whether you acknowledge satan is in charge or not …………. he does not care ……….. if do not follow God ……….. then that is all he cares about …………. the rest of the degeneration will follow by consequence ………….

bill@19D

two problems with this.

#1 If I do not by into your worldview then it does not determine my political view or view on the law thus you can not say “well this is what is going on so it is a determining factor” becasue it does not impact how I think, rather only how you judge my thinking.

#2 you are assuming that it is impossible to follow God and support same sex marriage. this is not at all true. You could think it is a sin but should still be legal or you may not even think it is a sin. so the premise behind the argument itself is flawed in addition to the mechanics of the argument as well.

Amos Moses

“#1 If I do not by into your worldview then it does not determine my political view”

Your worldview determines your ideas of government no matter what my worldview is ……… so not relevant ………….

“#2 you are assuming that it is impossible to follow God and support same sex marriage.”

It is not an assumption ……………………

bill@19D

#1 yes and my worldview says that church and state are separate. thus the church can prohibit something while the government allow it. combining the two is not in the interest of freedom.

#2 and yes it is an assumption as I follow God and support same sex marriage. you may disagree over how best to follow God but that does not mean I am not a christian. there are many areas of doctrine and theology on which Christians disagree, this is one of them.

ShemSilber

Amos Moses has told you straight, and there is backup for it in Daniel 4, verses 17 & 25. The Most High, Yahuwah our Mighty One is the only Power, and He sets up and takes down rulers according to His purpose. As the Word says, He sets up even the basest of men, which appears to be the case with this last illegal occupant of the White House. Every government is accountable to Yahuwah.

Psalm 50:16-23 is speaking both to individuals and governments who think they can defy Yahuwah and not suffer the consequences, yet He has great patience with us foolish mortals, looking to save whoever will choose to accept His gift of everlasting life, in the Name of the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), omein.

bill@19D

okay but nothing there says that we must use our shared civil law to force religious teachings on the broader society. my point is that the government can make something legal even while the Bible condemns it. case in point, the law in the US makes it legal to worship the God of your choice even while the Bible says it is wrong to worship any god other then the God of the Bible. so by saying that the government and God can both independently define marriage I am saying that they can both define marriage in different ways. It is not the case that the government must pick a certain religious tradition and then use the law to force compliance with that religious tradition. nations that do that have no freedom or liberty or concern for basic human rights.

ShemSilber

You’re speaking about choice, which is ours from the Creator. Each individual and nation has
choice whether to follow the way of life and blessing on the one hand, or the
way of death and curses on the other. In either case, if we follow the
instructions, the road map, provided by the Torah, then we will fill the reason
that we were created. We are now in the image of the Creator, and we have the
opportunity also to be totally in His likeness (Genesis 1:26), which is not
complete yet.

Any regulation or
belief that we practice contrary to the Torah that the Creator gave Moses will
be brought under judgment and disposed of, for it will not exist in His
Kingdom. Those who refuse to turn from Torah violations and to the Master
Yahushua (Lord Jesus) our Redeemer will answer to Him, both the little people
and the rulers of this age.

When the Master
Yahushua has returned and is ruling from Jerusalem, all evil will be swept OFF
the face of the earth and we will have peace on earth, in the Name of the
Master Yahushua, omein.

ShemSilber

You’re speaking about choice, which is ours from the Creator. He will not take that away from us. Each individual and nation has choice whether to follow the way of life and blessing on the one hand, or the way of death and curses on the other. In either case, if we follow the instructions, the road map, provided by the Torah, then we will fill the reason that we were created. We are now in the image of the Creator, and we have the opportunity also to be totally in His likeness (Genesis 1:26), which is not complete yet.

Any regulation or belief that we practice contrary to the Torah that the Creator gave Moses will be brought under judgment and disposed of, for it will not exist in His Kingdom. Those who refuse to turn from Torah violations and to the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) our Redeemer will answer to Him, both the little people and the rulers of this age.

When the Master Yahushua has returned and is ruling from Jerusalem, all evil will be swept OFF the face of the earth and we will have peace on earth, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein.

bill@19D

okay and at which point the conversation then shifts to a religious argument about if homosexuality is a sin or not. I would argue that it is not, that the Bible does not place a blanket ban on homosexuality but rather we should approach it with the same sexual ethic that we apply to heterosexuals. in which case same sex marriage would be a good thing and a necessary part of the sexual ethic in that it would provide marriage as the proper place for gay people to express their sexuality.

so I am glad that we agree that as far as the law goes we have choice and the law can differ from what God blesses. that still leaves open the second question about what is blessed but it is a good place to start and an important point so thank you.

Chip01

Gods” words has changed, and often

Heck, there’s an “old book” and a “new book”

james blue

So God doesn’t consider two elderly opposite gender people who marry as “valid” or two opposite gender sterile people who marry as “valid”?

AustinRocks

Since these slobs won’t even conserve something as fundamental as marriage, they ought to be honest and call themselves “Liberals Lite.”

robertzaccour

The word liberal has been hijacked by the regressive left. Libertarians are often referred to as “classic liberals”. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin; Those were true liberals.

bill@19D

They are conserving marriage. They are recognizing the importance of marriage and the fact is that that importance of marriage applies to heterosexual and gay couples.denying marriage to same sex couples does nothing to conserve or support marriage.

So there was another james blue that i read and he said the opposite …………. so which of you is right ………….. and does the fact that you are both called james blue ….. in any way diminish one or the other of you and why or why not ……….. you are both the same thing because you both use the same name ………… right …….

james blue

But they are two different people ….Right? What one thinks doesn’t change how the other thinks….Right? One might be a republican and the other a democrat, that they have the same name doesn’t doesn’t make the other to a republican/democrat…Right?

Please tell us all just what changed about heterosexual marriage because gays can marry each other. My marriage hasn’t been changed one bit. It still means the same as it did over 4 decades ago when my wife and I made our vows to each other.

Amos Moses

“But they are two different people ….Right? What one thinks doesn’t change how the other thinks….Right? One might be a republican and the other a democrat, that they have the same name doesn’t doesn’t make the other to a republican/democrat…Right?”

No ……… calling it the same name does not alter it ………….. that is what we are being told …… and it is a lie ………………..

james blue

If someone else was called Amos Moses would that change you?

Amos Moses

And it does not change what marriage is just because you choose to call something else marriage …………. see ……. even you can understand that ………. very good ………. go to the head of the class …………

And it does not change what marriage is just because you choose to call something else marriage ………….. because the other thing …. is not a marriage ………….. but people are being deceived into the belief that it is a marriage …………

james blue

What do you think THAT means? not a quote, explain what you think that means,

Hint it says gay marriage does not change heterosexual marriage

Nidalap

Saying “gay marriage” is like saying tofu turkey. While it most demonstrably IS tofu, it is also demonstrably NOT turkey…

bill@19D

nope becasue marriage can and does include same sex couples. your comment assumes that there is something about marriage that prevents same sex couples from being included in it however in Canada and a growing number of other jurisdictions no such barrier exists. so gay marriage is just like heterosexual marriage, both describe the type of couple who is in the marriage.

Brad F

Banned from Crisis again, auntie?

Fasten your safety belt…

bill@19D

I have never been banned from Crisis I just get around that’s all,no need to limit myself to only posting at one site.

Brad F

By all means, spread your nonsense as wide as possible, the best comedy is unintentional. Nothing like an atheist blowhard to laugh about.

Nice of you to take a break from the website nakedcubscouts.orgy.

bill@19D

well then you are not in luck given that I am not an atheist. Sorry to disappoint but I am in fact a christian.

Brad F

No such thing as “gay Christian.” Christians try to live decently, not like alleycats.

bill@19D

And I do not spread AIDS nor have I ever infected anyone with a disease. There is very much such a thing as Christians who are gay. Perhaps you should look at what it means to be a christian, not being gay, is not part of the definition of what it means to be a christian.

The Last Trump

I’m afraid Christianity and homosexuality and incompatible.
It’s just a fact.
Maybe try to hijack another religion?

bill@19D

No it is not a fact. you may think that they are incompatible but there is more then one christian view on the subject just like there is more then one christian view on many other topics. some christian denominations are very clear that gay people can be Christians and even leaders in the church. I would also add that more denominations are also starting to re-consider their position on the matter and with good reason. a sexual ethic that provides a moral path for gay people is far more workable then one that denies any path for gay people to morally live out their sexuality and more consistent with the broader christian sexual ethic.

I am very much aware of what the bible says on the matter and what I do not see in there is a blanket ban on homosexuality. I see things like male prostitution condemned but the same is true for heterosexual prostitution. I have no interest in what Islam says about homosexuality as I am not Muslim nor would I encourage anyone to be Muslim.

WorldGoneCrazy

Like Islam? 🙂

Josey

When one realizes their need of our Savior Jesus Christ and repents of their sins and decides to follow Him, old things are past away and all things become new. You cannot ride a two horses with one arse, the past is in the past and you become a new creation in Christ Jesus so if you are holding on to the title of ‘gay Christian’ you have deceived yourself and have not become a new creation in Christ Jesus, period…

bill@19D

you are assuming there that homosexuality is a sin and thus would have been left in the past however I would say that homosexuality is no more a sin then heterosexuality. both can be engaged in a sinful way but at the same time both can be engaged in a moral way. In which case I can just as much be christian and gay as i could be christian and heterosexual.

also note that I am using gay to mean not only homosexual but affirming of that. even if you were to say that homosexuality is a sin it would still be possible to homosexual and a christian just like it would be possible to struggle with any other sin and be a christian. so either way it would be possible to be homosexual and a christian, the only question then is if you can be a christian while not seeing homosexuality as a sin and continuing to engage in it and to that I would say yes applying the same sexual ethic as applies to heterosexuals.

archaeologist

there is no such thing as a gay christian. the bible makes that perfectly clear when it says that ‘in Christ you are a new creature, old things have passed away…’ (paraphrase)

you can’t be redeemed by christ if you remain in sin

bill@19D

Yes when you are saved you turn from sin and try to live in accordance with Gods will.

A: even if homosexuality is a sin Christians still struggle with sin and thus someone who sees homosexuality as a sin and stays celibate could still be attracted to the same sex.

B: if homosexuality is not a sin the argument does not apply at all as it would not be a sin that needs to be turned away from. I would say that homosexuality is not a sin and thus not an obstacle to being a christian.

Nidalap

::Shrugs:: You can call a tiger a zebra. You can get all your friends to call tigers zebras. You can have laws passed to FORCE folks to call tigers zebras.

They’re still going to be tigers though…

bill@19D

and what is a Tiger? It is an animal that we have decided to call a Tiger. Now if we were to collectively decide to re-name the animals could we do that? well of course we could, the names only correspond to the animal becasue that is the name that we gave it and thus if we re-named it the new name would correspond to the animal that we re-named. so actually your analogy proves my point, we named the animal so we could re-name it. in the same way we created the civil marriage law so we can change it.

BanIgnorance

Cannabis logic

bill@19D

not at all, never used the stuff and never will. the argument is rather straightforward, perhaps if you read it again it will be clearer.

ShemSilber

Not cannabis logic necessarily, but lies from the pit of hell still. There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage” except in the minds of the deranged, those who have fallen pray to the devil’s deception, per Romans 1:18-32.

Nidalap

Nope. Not just the name. I’m talking about saying that it’s the other creature. Call a tiger a zebra. Put it in with the actual zebras.

The difference quickly becomes apparent…

bill@19D

Well of course in that case it becomes different becasue now the change in name does not correlate with a change in definition or function. It is a change in name only. However in that case the analogy has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage for same sex couples and heterosexual couples is the same. It is given the same name becasue it follows the same definition and and does the same things.

ShemSilber

Not cannabis logic necessarily, Bill, but lies from the pit of hell still.
There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage” except in the minds of the
deranged, those who have fallen pray to the devil’s deception, per
Romans 1:18-32, in the Name of the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), omein.

bill@19D

Just for your information in case you did not know you are double posting. also If you want to make changes you can edit your post as opposed to re-posting with edits.

now yes there is such a thing as same sex marriage. I am talking about civil marriage and in this case it allows gay couples to get married. a couple does not need the blessing of God to be married. they would need God to bless the marriage to be married in His eyes but they can still be married in the eyes of the law and state without any religious blessing or recognition of the marriage. furthermore marriage is both a religious and a secular concept and word. the use of it by one does not preclude the use of it by the other. thus the government and the church can both use the word marriage and they can use it to mean different things.

thanks.

ShemSilber

Tell that to your Creator at the time you come before the Great White Throne mentioned in Revelation 20, and you will see that it doesn’t hold water. (You don’t have to believe truth for it to be true, nor will believing a lie make the lie truth.)

This present scene is only temporary, a testing ground to see if we will choose the Way of Life, the way whereby we can live forever, or will we succumb to lies and obfuscations from the evil one and so choose to die the second death, says the Master Yahushua to you through me, His servant, omein.

bill@19D

Thanks for the concern but I know where I am going when I die and I am ready to stand before my God. I have full peace in that, but again thanks for your concern.

ShemSilber

If you have submitted to the Master Yahushua, the one and only door to everlasting life, that’s good for you.

I know of some who were saved while they were addicted to illegal drugs, and the Master Yahushua empowered them to be free from the drugs. Likewise for all of us, if we are addicted to any sins, whether it is drugging, promiscuity, homosexuality, or whatever, He will empower us to be free from them.

He will give all of His saints His loving correction in order to prepare us properly for entry into His Kingdom, wherein dwells only righteousness. When He has cleaned us up and made us fit, then He will at His return give us new bodies with hearts that He has written His Torah on, so that we shall never stray any more into any abomination, but serve our Father with eternal health, strength and zeal into the ages of the endless ages, in the Name of the Master Yahushua, omein.

ShemSilber

Not cannabis logic necessarily, Bill, but lies from the pit of hell still.
There is no such thing as same-sex “marriage” except in the minds of the
deranged, those who have fallen pray to the devil’s deception, per
Romans 1:18-32.

Brad F

These buffoons think that two elderly antique dealers splitting the utility bills is “marriage.” People who are confused morally will also be confused mentally.

Marriage WILL be marriage indeed. Saying that something else is will NOT make it be so…

Theodore Fenton

Love won.

Nidalap

It’s a nice catchphrase. Repeating it won’t make it true…

Theodore Fenton

Love won … again. In time, you’ll get used to it.

Amos Moses

How can losers win …………. if they still choose to lose …….. and be losers .

LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

I think he meant sinful lust has won. What he does not realize is that God will put an end this sin. And one day God will end all sin.

Theodore Fenton

“Sin” is irrelevant.

LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

In the eyes of sinful Man/Woman perhaps. But in the eyes of God you are wrong.

Theodore Fenton

Your belief in one or more deities is irrelevant.

LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

My belief in the God of Creation matters. 🙂 And what He says about SIN matters 🙂

Jalapeno

You are aware that marriage is a legal term too? That it doesn’t belong to your religious beliefs?

Aaron

Tigers and zebras exist without any humans to define what they are. The same cannot be said about marriage.

Let’s say you were to compare two different marriages. One is a same-sex marriage, and the other is an opposite-sex marriage – but you don’t know which is which. Other than looking at the gender of any of the people involved, how would you tell which marriage is ‘real’ and which marriage is not?

Nidalap

Nonsensical argument.

Let’s say you were to compare two different marriages. One is a conventional, one man/one woman marriage, and the other has someone ‘marrying’ their dog- but you don’t know which is which. OTHER than looking at the species of the participants, how would you tell which marriage is real and which marriage is not? 🙂

Aaron

Let’s see:

1) The members of one marriage are not able to communicate
2) One member is not able to make complex decisions or judgements
3) One member is not able to indicate whether they want to be in the marriage at all

Do you really not see any difference between marrying the person you love (who happens to be the same sex), and marrying a dog?

yes words do have meanings this is true. it is also true that the specific meaning of a word can change over time. this is even more so true when that word is describing a legal reality that can change as the law changes and the law changes as it is changed by those with the authority to change it. So yes words do have meaning and yes I do care about that. the word marriage has changed to mean not just the union of a heterosexual couple but also the union of a same sex couple.

Theodore Fenton

You’ll get used to it.

John_33

While I understand you are here to cheer on the decision, Christians do not and cannot recognize same-sex “marriage” as a marriage. It simply is not one, no matter how many governments or political parties say otherwise. Sadly, the Conservative Party is turning its back on many of its voters by making this decision. This issue is not over since it affects such a crucial part of society.

Theodore Fenton

Nope, your scriptures do not forbid same-sex marriage. It’s over. The deal is done. That ship has sailed. Time to move on.

John_33

It not only condemns same-sex “marriage”, God wiped out entire nations, in part, because of homosexual practice. That’s how bad God sees it, yet God is also merciful and wants to see sinners repent. That’s why we aren’t seeing such destruction at the moment.

Aaron

So, your god saw fit to (allegedly) wipe out nations because of homosexuality – yet chose to do nothing about countries which practiced slavery or committed genocide?

And this is the being that you worship.

John_33

Says who? God judges everyone appropriately, and this includes homosexuality. I think you are more offended at the idea of a righteous God.

Aaron

Ha – “righteous”.

I’m offended that you apparently value people so little as to consider homosexuality grounds for killing an entire nation, yet for some reason consider slavery and genocide to be insufficient.

John_33

If this is all you have, then you just don’t know the Bible.

Aaron

Can you be more specific? I’m unclear whether you’re saying that your god did wipe out nations for the aforementioned reasons (or at least reasons other than homosexuality), or if you’re saying that doing so isn’t an issue.

John_33

It isn’t an issue since God’s judgement isn’t genocide. Or are you saying that God is not allowed to judge humanity?

Aaron

I thought you didn’t like redefining words:

“genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group”

What would you call deliberately murdering everyone in a city?

John_33

You tripped over your own definition:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

God lawfully decreed that civilizations would be wiped out. He could have done it by flood, fire, storm, wind, rain, or people, etc. He chose people to do it. Judges don’t commit murder when they sentence people to die. Executioners don’t murder people when they are under orders to execute someone. God’s servants didn’t murder when they acted based on God’s lawful order.

Theodore Fenton

I think the fact that you admit to worshiping such a deity says more about you than it says about your deity.

John_33

It says that God is a righteous judge who holds us accountable.

Aaron

So, God lawfully decreed that everyone – men, women, and children – should be wiped out because of consensual sex between men in that city. Even if having sex with someone of the same gender were somehow a crime, God was still killing everyone, innocent or guilty.

If this is ‘objective morality’, I think I’m just fine without it, thanks.

John_33

Homosexual practice was one of the many things that went on there. The nations corrupted themselves, so God removed them. God put us on earth, He can decide when we leave. That’s His decision to make.

Aaron

So, ‘objective morality’ is the same for everyone, across all cultures. However, there’s a giant loophole cut into it for God – anything he does it by definition moral.

How is that ‘objective’?

John_33

No giant loophole. God infused morality into creation.

You are also mistaken since God can’t do anything & still be moral. There are things that God could do that wouldn’t be moral. It would be evil if He broke His covenant with His people when He said He wouldn’t. It would be evil if He promised His people heaven but gave them hell. These are things God cannot do because they go against His nature, so your argument is moot. God rules by moral decree, and He holds us accountable because He told us what is moral and what isn’t. It’s our responsibility if we choose to disobey.

Aaron

It would be evil if He broke His covenant with His people when He said He wouldn’t.

But apparently not genocide. Gotcha.

John_33

No, a judge condemning murderers to death is not evil.

Aaron

Leaving the morality of the death penalty aside, are you saying that everyone in those cities was guilty of this ‘crime’? What about the children in the city – did they deserve death too?

John_33

God sometimes judges people by enacting punishment on their children. When judging nations, God judges them on a national level. God can do that since He’s God. He created us. He can decide when it’s our time to die, whether in judgement or not. He’s sovereign.

Aaron

God sometimes judges people by enacting punishment on their children.

I’m more than a little disturbed that you think that’s okay.

John_33

Are you saying God isn’t allowed to judge His creation the way He sees fit? Are you going to stop Him? 🙂

Aaron

I’m disturbed that 1) You consider this to be a reasonable way for a supposedly perfectly good, perfectly moral being to act, were it to exist; and 2) that while you claim to have an objective moral code, it’s essentially just ‘might makes right’ when it comes to your God.

One member said, “As a gay Conservative, I find it troubling that the party of which I’ve been a member for almost 40 years has a policy that tells me my relationship with my partner is not valued, my civil rights are of no concern.” This is an interesting. Are conservative Canadians ignorant of what the value of marriage is? Have they lost the scientific basic understanding of where children come from, and the physical nature of the relationship of children to their mother and father? While people may assign all manner of meaning to their relationships, they cannot expect these relationships to be valued as marriage when there is no possibility that these relationships will bring forth children! You may value your relationship with your dog, your cat, your xbox or a friend, but none of these is marriage.

bill@19D

“they cannot expect these relationships to be valued as marriage when there is no possibility that these relationships will bring forth children” Well then wait a moment, in that case should we also deny marriage to heterosexual couples if those couples are unable to reproduce? the fact of the matter is that we let heterosexual couples get married and we value those relationships as marriage even if the couple is not able to reproduce. why do we do this? becasue the value and the purpose of marriage goes beyond reproduction. for one thing the couple can still be parents even if they are not able to reproduce. for another thing the couple can still be a family without kids and being married still has value to them and to society.

so A: are you still going to say that there is no purpose for letting a couple get married if they are unable to reproduce and

B: if yes are you then willing to tell heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce that they are also not able to get married?

You write to defend “heterosexual couples if those couples are unable to reproduce”. You had to add “if” – a proviso. You had to do this because married men and woman consistently show themselves able to reproduce, also repeatedly defying those who are said to be unable by reason of age, health and disability. I tell you that even the most healthy homosexual couples are ALL UNABLE to reproduce. That is science. Their acts of charity sound interesting, but these can not transform their relationship into marriage.

bill@19D

Yes I did have to add an if. All gay couples are unable to procreate while with heterosexual couples most are able to procreate while a minority are not able to do so. However this fact does not change either of the two questions I listed above. the fact that most heterosexual couples can procreate does not mean that all can nor does the reproductive ability of some heterosexual couples cover those who are not able to reproduce. so again I ask the two questions becasue they do indeed apply to heterosexual couples.

so A: are you still going to say that there is no purpose for letting a couple get married if they are unable to reproduce and

B: if yes are you then willing to tell heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce that they are also not able to get married?

Amos Moses

“However this fact does not change either of the two questions I listed above.”

Yes, it does ……………….

bill@19D

No it does not. If we are to treat the ability to reproduce as a requirement for marriage then you must apply that requirement to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. You can not just never apply the requirement to heterosexual couples but then turn around and use it as a requirement to justify turning same sex couples away. you either need to apply the rule to both or neither. given that we do not want to turn heterosexual couples away from marriage simply becasue they are unable to reproduce that means applying the standard to neither.

Amos Moses

“If we are to treat the ability to reproduce as a requirement for marriage then you must apply that requirement to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.”

It is not a “requirement”……. it is what defines a man and a woman and a marriage ……. and anything outside of that …………….. not a marriage …………. now a seventy year old man and woman may not ever conceive ……….. but the possibility is there ………. but two men or two women ………….. not happening ……………..

70-Year-Old Woman Gives Birth to First Baby : Discovery News
10 May 2016 … An Indian woman who gave birth at the age of 70 said Tuesday she was not too old to become a first-time mother, adding that her life was now …

No matter how old two homosexuals get …………. or how young ……….. not happening ….

bill@19D

okay so lets say that we have a man and a woman who we know are sterile and not able to reproduce. or a couple where the woman is paralyzed from the neck down and not able to reproduce. in that case there is no possibility for them to reproduce, the possibility is not there. so in the case of heterosexual couples in which case reproduction is not at all possible should we still let them marry or should we prohibit them from being able to marry given that they have no chance at being able to reproduce?

Amos Moses

You can try to devolve the conversation ANY WAY YOU CHOOSE ……….. i have known MANY people declared “sterile” …………………. who have children …………. not adopted children …… their OWN children …………… and you are trying to argue by exception ………….. it is POOR debate technique ……………… and it does not change the BIOLOGICAL TRUTH ……

The exception fallacy occurs when data about an individual or group is used to draw conclusions about a group of people.

Two Men together or Two Women together cannot reproduce on their own …………… Not an Exception ….. A Biological FACT …… try dealing with the FACTS ………………..

bill@19D

I am dealing with the facts. The fact of the matter is that there are some heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce. You are the one who is trying to argue by exception by pulling up rare cases of people who would typically be unable to reproduce yet were able to but the fact of the matter is still that there are some heterosexual couples who are unable to reproduce.

so yes same sex couples are not able to reproduce on their own. this is a fact and no one is contesting it. but there are also heterosexual couples who are not able to reproduce. so the moment you say that gay couples are not able to get married becasue they can not reproduce you must also say that heterosexual couples who are not able to reproduce should not be allowed to get married. the fact that this only applies to some heterosexual couples does not change the argument. If the potential to reproduce is a requirement for marriage then all couples, heterosexual or homosexual, would need to demonstrate the potential to reproduce in order to get married. or perhaps using that line of thinking we would only let couples get married when a child has been conceived.

Amos Moses

“I am dealing with the facts. The fact of the matter is that there are some heterosexual couples that are unable to reproduce. ”

And AGAIN, logical fallacy of argument by Exception ……………… and NOT a valid argument …………

bill@19D

It is not at all argument by exception. It is saying that for every couple that seeks marriage the same standard must apply. you can not just say “well most heterosexual couples can reproduce so we are just going to treat them all like they can reproduce” The moment you do that you show that the restriction is not about only letting couples who are able to reproduce get married but rather only letting heterosexual couples get married. The moment you change how the restriction is applied, so the targeting mechanism could only ever be employed agasint gay couples while all heterosexual couples are automatically treated as if they have reproductive ability, you show what the true goal of that restriction is. at that point the enforcement of the restriction is discriminatory and is struck down. So the argument is indeed a valid one. you either apply the standard equally to all couples or you do not apply it at all. selectively writing the rules so the standard is only ever used to turn gay couples away invalidates the rule becasue at that point it is a tool of discrimination and no longer a valid rule about the nature of marriage.

the Bottom line is that if you want a way to deny marriage to gay couples you need to go down another road becasue this one always will end at the same dead-end. there is NO way to deny marriage to gay couples on the grounds that they are not able to natural reproduce with out also denying marriage to some heterosexual couples. anything else is set up to implode as discriminatory when challenged.

Amos Moses

“It is not at all argument by exception. It is saying that for every couple that seeks marriage the same standard must apply. ”

All you want to do, all you come up with is “this exception” and “that exception”…… your entire argument is exception …… and the law was equally applied …. to everyone …. without exception ……….. prior to this ruling ………. and the underlying truth for that law remains unchanged ……………… the only thing that has changed is ……………..

ARGUMENT BY EXCEPTION …………. and Special Pleadings ………….. and it is all a lie and invalid …………… and all homosexual “marriages” are lies ………….. they did not want marriage ……. they wanted to be different ………… but they did not like the difference ….. so now they want to pollute those that they made themselves different from in being ……. and their lies continue unabated …………….. and that is the REAL CRUX of all this ……… THE LIES … THEY CANNOT ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME …………. AND THEY NEED US TO CONFIRM THEIR LIE ………

bill@19D

Once again you have not responded to anything that I just said but rather only repeated your prior misrepresentation of what I said. please re-read and respond to what I said above as opposed to just repeating your misrepresentation of my position. I explained in detail why it was not an argument by exception but rather that if the ability to procreate is going to be used as a requirement for marriage that it must be applied to all couples. you are not applying the requirement to all couples if all heterosexual couples are automatically assumed to have the ability to procreate.

Amos Moses

You have not said anything new …………. it is all any of those for homosexual “marriage” have …… exceptions and special pleadings ………

bill@19D

not at all, take your comments and apply them to yourself. you are the one who wants to ditch a equally applies standard in favor to one that is only ever applied agasint gay couples while never attempting to put heterosexual couples to the same test. it is blatantly discriminatory and thus it will not stand. you can deny that all you want but it is still there to be the cause of your sides loss. as I have said before as soon as the restriction is only ever applies agasint gay couples it becomes obvious that the goal is not to restrict marriage to only those who are able to reproduce but rather to turn away gay couple. and that’s when the restriction no longer can be justified as serving a valid purpose but rather becomes rejected for only serving invalid, discriminatory purposes.

Aaron

Opposite-sex couples who can’t (or choose not to) reproduce are an exception? In that case, I assume you’d have no issues with this scenario:

A man and a woman go to get a marriage license. The clerk asks them one simple question: “Do you ever plan on having children?” If they say yes, no further details are needed. They are simply given their license as usual.

If, however, they say no, they are denied their license. After all, they themselves have said that they’re never going to have children. Surely their marriage would serve no useful purpose – or, not even be a ‘real’ marriage!

Would you be fine with the implementation of that scenario? Why or why not?

Amos Moses

Again, argument by exception ……… a fallacy and a false argument …….. policy is not made on exceptions that may occur …….. and two men or two women ……….. WILL NEVER reproduce …………. which is the only point of the state even being involved to begin with ……….. it is to the benefit of the state to have new taxpayers to support their system ………

Aaron

You completely ignored by question. Do you or do you not support such a requirement being imposed on opposite-sex couples who wish to get marry? It’s a simple question, and would exclude all of those awful opposite-sex couples who ‘WILL NEVER reproduce …………. which is the only point of the state even being involved to begin with’, right?

Amos Moses

Your argument is fallacy …………. so yes it was ignored ……… it is argument by exception ….

Aaron

It’s a simple yes or no question. If you won’t answer it, or at least give a better reason for why you won’t answer it, then you’re just wasting my time.

Amos Moses

It is a simply false argument ……………….

Aaron

How is it false? Do you deny that it would be possible for clerks to ask such a question when issuing marriage licenses, or do you have a different issue with it?

Amos Moses

… it is argument by exception …. it is a false argument …….. laws are not made on “exceptions” ………. they are made on the greatest benefit to the median, the norm ……

Aaron

I thought you said that the reason same-sex couples couldn’t marry is that they can never reproduce. Surely you don’t think it’s too much of a burden on opposite-sex couples to ask them one simple question? After all, they could always just lie and say ‘Yes, we can reproduce’ – the government need not look into it. If they say ‘No, we can’t reproduce’, then deny them the license – it’s as simple as that.

Surely, that provides that greatest benefit to the median – since we are spared the horrors of allowing marriage between people who cannot have biological children.

Amos Moses

It has been explained ………… you may have the last word ………..

Aaron

All you’ve done is repeatedly ignore my question. What harm is done by clerks asking such a simple question to opposite-sex couples applying for a marriage license? If most opposite-sex people can reproduce, then it’s even less of a burden!

It sounds like you would like marriage to bend away from science towards your carefully phrased “paradox” which you have to reproduce without alteration because of the convoluted negations. Try to turn your question into a positive statement in support for your position – maybe it is more than the empty words it appears to be?

bill@19D

I am not talking about bending marriage away from science at all, rather simply applying the same standard to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. If we are to treat the ability to reproduce as a requirement for marriage then we must apply that requirement to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. You can not just never apply the requirement to heterosexual couples but then turn around and use it as a requirement to justify turning same sex couples away. you either need to apply the rule to both or neither. given that we do not want to turn heterosexual couples away from marriage simply becasue they are unable to reproduce that means applying the standard to neither.

Why would anyone apply your standards to marriage? What do your standards have to do with marriage? You’re not so very important, nor are your arguments clever. You’re throwing around the language of qualifications, restrictions and requirements, instead of speaking about the basic nature of the thing that is marriage. You despise the basic nature of marriage, and desire to smother it in words. What you say merely modifies the toxicity of the air around you.

bill@19D

Because they are not just my standards, rather they reflect how civil marriage works. Civil marriage is not a pre-existing thing, rather it is a socio-legal construct which is created and defined by man. As such it is not defined by a basic nature, rather it is defined by qualifications, restrictions, and requirements. These qualification, restrictions, and requirements of marriage can and do change and they must change in ways that respects the rights of all citizens. This means that you can not disregard equal treatment for the citizens and these qualifications, restrictions, and requirements must be applied equally. these are the issues that matter when discussing civil marriage.

How odd. Marriage created by man? How sad that we cannot find out what basic fact of the nature of man and woman would have informed this most unusual invention.

bill@19D

What informs the invention? simple. the fact that it is in the best interest of both the couple and the society to have a way to recognize and support the union of the couple. It matters to a large number of issues, both to when the two are both alive and also to if the couple splits up or one of them dies. so it is not at all surprising that marriage would exist nor it is an unusual invention when you think about it. nor this would have stated with man woman unions but it is also easy to see how this could expand to same sex couples as soon as gay people were recognized as a normal part of society. same sex marriage only recently started advancing not becasue it demanded some massive change to marriage but rather becasue gay people only recently started being accepted by society. once that happens same sex marriage is a natural and rapid development.

The one issue at issue is the issue of the union: children. Children are the issue of a particular bodily union, and by their existence they impose definition on it, whether you and revisionist society like it or not.

bill@19D

No children are not the only issue at hand here. yes children by their existence do impose a definition on a certain relationship….and that is called a procreative relationship, not marriage. marriage is broader then procreative relationships and can be used for relationships even if they have zero chance of leading to reproduction. so lets not confuse a procreative union and marriage becasue they are not one and the same. it is possible to have a procreative union without marriage and it is also possible to have marriage without having a procreative union. the two often overlap however they do not always overlap and thus they are not interchangeable.

Theodore Fenton

Once again Canada gets it right.

NikE

Good news. Congratulations.

Grace Kim Kwon

So sad. No matter what today’s godless Western humanism says, marriage is between one man and one woman according to the Holy Bible, and all else are not marriage but sins. Canada must retain the liberty for people to declare God’s truth, as the nation was created to spread Christianity instead of sexual immorality. In the absense of a single tyrant and without even forcing of denial of God’s existence and or despising colored people, this century the West is suceeding to oppress humanity in a new way by forcing everyone to uphold the depraved sexual immorality as marriage. Nations and empires did evil with various reasons, buit this is the most despicable kind because homosexuality is sexual immorality that leads to pedophilia and sex with anything in existence. May God bring justice upon the sexually mentally-ill nations for the sake of all children.

bill@19D

Okay so that’s a religious definition of marriage. The Conservative party was not voting on a stance on how marriage should be defined by a church or what they think God says about marriage but rather what the law should say about marriage. there is a big difference.

secondly no, civil marriage does not restrict religious freedom. those who believe that God only blesses the marriage of a man and a woman are free to continue to believe that. at the same time same sex couples will have legal access to marriage. It is not an either or where either gay couples can get married or religious liberty dies.

finally no, homosexuality does NOT lead to pedophilia. saying that homosexuality leads to pedophilia is just as wrong as saying that heterosexuality leads to pedophilia. saying that homosexuality is okay in no way would mean that suddenly it is okay to molest kids.

TheBottomline4This

“marriage”

bill@19D

If by quotation marks you mean that you do not approve then sure. if by quotation marks you mean that it is not actually marriage then you would be wrong. the law determines who can and who can not get married in the eyes of the law and so the marriages for these gay couples are real and valid. you may not like them, you may think they are wrong but they are in fact real and valid. there is quite a big difference between saying what marriage should be and realizing what it is.

Grace Kim Kwon

If Canada forces the people to acknowledge the same-sex “marriage” as marriage, the nation should be charged with a crime of human rights abuse. All people have rights to the truth, and liberty is for declaring the truth. What is not marriage is not marriage, and such condoning would not be forced if the regime is not a criminal.

Jalapeno

I’m sure you’re still free to pretend like they aren’t really married…it just won’t be applicable to reality.

bill@19D

what do you mean “forced to acknowledge”? people can continue to believe that same sex marriage is wrong, heck they can even pretend that the marriage is not real if they want to but at the end of the day it is real and valid. so what would “forced to acknowledge” look like in your book? how would that work?

Edward MacGuire

This is a change to a political party’s policy, not a change to the law. Same-sex marriage in Canada has been in place since 2005.

Grace Kim Kwon

I know. They should never force people to acknowledge same-sex “marriage” as marriage, since it is falsehood. God said marriage is between one man and one woman. No matter what Canadian government says, truth does not change.

bill@19D

The government is not saying that same sex marriage is marriage in the eyes of God, rather they are saying that same sex marriage is legal marriage in the eyes of the law. there is a big difference. it is most certainly NOT a falsehood to say that same sex marriage is indeed legal and valid marriage becasue it is. what God says about marriage does not negate what the law says about marriage, the two are independent of each other and so they can and do differ as to what is a marriage. so the truth is that marriage means more then one thing and that its meaning differs depending on who is granting the status of marriage. this is not about truth changing becasue a statement about civil marriage does not imply that marriage in the eyes of God has changed. as soon as the two are not wrongly confused it is easy to see how this is not an issue.

Grace Kim Kwon

Secularism’s legality is no truth. Same-sex “marriage” is two people living in sin. It’s not something like interracial marriage. Canadian government must not push their immoral view upon the people in any case. People should be free to treat same-sex “marriage” as a sin.

This style ten and six

You can believe in your mind that SSM is a sin if you want to. It remains the fact that it is legal in Canada and we are perfectly at ease with it.

Grace Kim Kwon

Yes, you are, but not with the true Christians. You guys will apologize to the Christians some years later if God allows Canada to continue as a nation. The Western nations repeat the evil follies every time they oppose the Holy Bible. It’s a clear pattern in history. The Westerners should stop doing evil instead of scorning mankind with fake apologies. Just stop oppressing the truth and human conscience now.

bill@19D

you can believe that same sex marriage is sin all you want. it is still legal and thus it is still a marriage in the eyes of the law and thus in any legal situation where the couple needs to be treated as a married couple the law applies. Again you say that the government must not “push its view” on the people but people can believe it is a sin as they wish. just know that said belief that it is a sin does nothing to change the legality or reality that the same sex couple is indeed married.

Grace Kim Kwon

It is the secular Western nations who went lawless this century for the sake of upholding sexual chaos. Enough of your evil colonialism. You guys are never sorry for your atrocities. Your forefathers were not baby-killing pervs though they were racist. ( Every human is racist in that sense) Sodom’s talk of legality means nothing and such legality is a human rights abuse. Go back to the laws. Stop persecuting the Christians for refusing to endorse immorality and assisting infanticide and suicide. You guys are breaking the human rights and liberty in the foundational level. People have rights to God’s truth and conscience.

The Western nations have no lawfulness apart from the Judeo-Christian values. The Westerners need to learn their own history to discover why liberty was established in the first place; it was to worship God freely, not to bow to the the bored rich mentally-ill Western pervs or do what they demand. Sin is slavery. You guys even have no will to protect women and children. Shame on you. The Western nations need the Biblical principles to stop doing the evil. You need to stop thinking you are smarter than the Holy Bible. It only caused insanity. When will you stop? Now the victims are global children.

bill@19D

how exactly does legalizing same sex marriage = going lawless? the process is indeed lawful.

how exactly is same sex marriage a human rights abuse? it is not at all a human rights abuse.

and no, Christians are not being persecuted for refusing to endorse what they consider to be immorality. the legalization of same sex marriage does not mean that people must see homosexuality as moral.

Grace Kim Kwon

Same-sex “marriage” is not marriage; being made treat such thing as marriage in any way is the slavery to falsehood. Canadian government will force people to adhere falsehood if the Christians continue silence. Other religious will have less problems because lying to infidels is not considered as unethical to them. It’s Bible-literate Christians that secular government will target for not-complying with lies and immorality and falsehood. You don’t feel the pressure at all because you are on the bullies’ side and not on the bullied. Bullies do not understand the victims, but bullying is bullying and must be stopped. Uncle Tom refused to beat innocent woman in spite of his slave owners’ commands; Christians refuse to endorse sexual immorality. Villains are those who oppose the Word of God. Secular Western culture must comply to the Biblical Church, not the other way around.

bill@19D

Yes same sex marriage is marriage in the eyes of the law. civil marriage is created and defined by man and thus can be changed by man. thus recognizing what the law says is marriage as legal marriage is not slavery to falsehood but rather recognizing reality. you are again refusing the recognize the reality that civil law is defined by man. this is not about demanding that Christians say that same sex marriage is moral, rather this is about saying that same sex marriage is legal and valid and those marriages must be treated as legal and valid in all legal situations.

and no, secular western culture does not need to comply with the Biblical church. what you are proposing is not freedom or liberty but rather religious totalitarianism. the imposition of religious law which is always detrimental to liberty and freedom. In that case the end result is the same as the imposition of Islamic law, the only difference is that you are proposing the imposition of christian law as opposed to Islamic law. Western nations are not going to do this becasue they value religious liberty. you can not both have religious liberty and impose one religious tradition on everyone via the force of law. this is also not what God wants. He wants people to chose to follow Him, no to be forced to follow Him by force of law.

Grace Kim Kwon

Secularism hurts and damages global children. Christians must protect children. Innocence, morality, and normality are children’s rights. Secularism forces immorality and funds infanticide. Silence is same as condoning. Christians do not do that. Today’s Western secularism is lawlessness.

bill@19D

Quite the jump from what we were talking about but okay. Yes Christians must protect children. one important way to do that is to allow the gay parents of kids to marry their spouse. allowing these kids to have married parents provides additional support and stability for them. and allowing gay people to be adoptive or foster parents is also very clearly a big-help to kids in need of loving caring parents. so yes we should care about kids and providing civil marriage for gay couples supports that goal, it does not hurt it. so thanks, the welfare of kids is another important reason why it is a good thing that the conservative party of Canada dropped its opposition to same sex marriage.

Grace Kim Kwon

Children have rights to innocence. Exposure to homosexuality is a child abuse. Secularism is insane, or even demon-possessed. Poor Canadian fathers; they must be feeling very sad about Canada in Heaven. Now the mankind has to deal with wayward rich pervs of the West on top of all other problems. Why can’t you guys just stay chaste if your inclination is so depraved, like some normal human beings would? Why do you have to brainwash children to be immoral? Why can’t you leave the young and the poor in peace? Why does everyone have to be made agree with your depravity in the nation which Christians has created for Christian virtues to be carried out? What mankind needs is Jesus the Saviour, not the Western culture of depravity. May God bring justice upon the world.

bill@19D

No, learning that gay people exist or being around gay people is not child abuse. secondly no, having gay parents does not equal brainwashing children. but let me ask you, do you also think that it is a form of child abuse for kids to have non-christian parents? do you think it is a violation of the child’s rights for them to grow up exposed to a non-christian religion?

Grace Kim Kwon

Religions are not immorality; however they error, they do not force immorality upon the children because religions usually do the contrary and teach morality. Biblical Christianity is incomparably outstanding among all mankind, and it’s the only religion for people to stay wholesome civilized; it contains no human rights abuse to anyone including the unborn babies and protects everyone equally and unconditionally while promoting purity and true love. Homosexuality and transgenderism is inherently immoral and must be taught and treated as sins to avoid or overcome – the only right thing to do.

bill@19D

ah so according to you it is not child abuse for parents to teach their kids to follow a religion that you think will send them to hell however it is child abuse for them to have gay parents. that is a very strange standard for child abuse that you have there. it is inconsistent but that is to be expected becasue you are just trying to oppose gay parenting, not parenting in general that would expose kids to things outside the teachings of the Bible. If your position was consistent then you would also only want kids raised by christian parents for the same reason you only want them raised by heterosexual parents. on the other side of the coin the law allows same sex parenting for the same reason it allows non-Christians to be parents, becasue the law should not be in the business of imposing one religious tradition on the rest of society.

no homosexuality is not inherently immoral, nor is it the role of the state to impose the view that it is immoral on the rest of society. You think it is immoral and I disagree. one of us is right and one of us is wrong but it is not the place of the state to say that one religious view is correct and the other is wrong. the moment the state does get into that business it kills true religious freedom and religious liberty.

Ronald Carter

It is a healthy sign, I think, that Canada’s most right-wing party is on board with this. Judging from the reactions of many of the people there I think everyone was pretty much in agreement that it was the right move.

Amos Moses

Putting powered sugar on horse manure does not make it a jelly doughnut …………

Ronald Carter

So you keep saying, although no one is quite sure why you’re saying it. Gay marriage is here to stay.

Amos Moses

And it is still a lie …………… no matter how many people believe it ……… it only makes them liars …………….

Ronald Carter

OK Mr. Moses, we will mark it down in your chart, “Does not adapt well to change”, right next to where we have “Does not play well with others”. Your opinion is noted.

Theodore Fenton

It is a reality, no matter how many people deny it, it only makes them deniers of reality.

Amos Moses

Yes. lies are a reality ……………. but they are still lies …………… and those that believe them are liars ……

Theodore Fenton

Nor does anyone make the claim that it’s a jelly doughnut.

Amos Moses

And the claim that a homosexual “marriage” is just as valid …….. IOW …………. it aint ….

Theodore Fenton

All legal marriages are valid. Your bigoted post reminds me of that racist old Southern myth that black parents are incapable of loving their children as much as white parents love theirs.

Amos Moses

“All legal marriages are valid.”

No, they are not …………

“Your bigoted post ”

You are bigoted to the truth ………….

” me of that racist old Southern myth that black parents are incapable of loving their children as much as white parents love theirs”

LOSER argument …………… RACE is not DEPRAVITY ……………… and you are a racist for try to equate what race is with what homosexuals are ………… DEPRAVED ……………. Race is NOT DEPRAVITY ………………. but you certainly want to make RACIST statements ……

Theodore Fenton

Nothing “depraved” about homosexuality. I don’t make racist statements. I make racial statements.

Amos Moses

Everything about homosexuality is depraved and you are just spouting communist talking points….. well established long ago ……….. that it is not ……….. It is depravity ….. and worst of all …………. you know it is depraved ………… and you NEED people to agree with you because you know it is depraved ……… homosexuals NEED us to swallow the lie that it is not …… desperate NEED ………… because homosexuals know it is a lie ……… their whole life is a lie …. and they think getting us to agree with the lie will change it …………….. NOPE ……

Obituraries numbering 6516 from 16 US homosexual journals over 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity, the median age of death of married men was 75, 80% of them died old, 65 or older. For unmarried or divored men the median age was of death was 57 and 32% of them died old.

Married women averaged age 79 at death, 85% died old, and unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

However, the median age of death for homosexuals was virtually the same nationwide, and overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDs was the cause of death, the median age was 39 years old. For the 829 homosexuals who died of something else besides AIDS, the median age was 42 years of age, and 9% died old. Of 163 lesbians, the median age was 44 years of age, and 20% died old. 2.8% of homosexuals died violently and they were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more apt to commit suicide, and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times greater than comparably aged white males. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident, a rate 487 times greater than that of white females aged 25 to 44.

So while you may have dodged a bullet, most do not, and VERY few homosexuals and lesbians make it to old age ….. It is the essence of DEPRAVITY ……….. and it effects are apparent …..

Theodore Fenton

Good thing we can now legally marry.

Amos Moses

It is Not going to help you ………………… and you are not married …… you are “married” …….. and it not the same thing ………. but nice try on that one ……. What you need is Christ and repentance ………. your ONLY hope …….

Theodore Fenton

I love being MARRIED.

Amos Moses

When you get married ……….. let me know ………. but what you are now is not a marriage …… no matter what piece of paper you may possess says ………… it is a lie ……….. lies do not count ……….

Theodore Fenton

Don’t be silly. That piece of paper is all that matters in a civil society. Try going to church instead of a court of law to get a divorce and see how well that works out for you.

Amos Moses

The court does not recognize my marriage …………… and i prefer that they do not …… i ……. unlike you ………. do not NEED their or others validation of it ……….. again,,,,,,,,, sad for you ……. 🙁 ……………. to be so needy for others approval of what you know is not valid ……. despite that piece of paper ……. and in the end ………… it will do you no good ………

Theodore Fenton

Now I get it. You’re not married at all, in any form or fashion. You must have shacked up with some church member. LOL!!!

Amos Moses

No ……. i am ………… married …… in the church ………. as God intended …….

Amos Moses

The Overhauling of Straight America
by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill

STEP 1: TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

STEP 2: PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS.

STEP 3: GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE.

STEP 4: MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD.

STEP 5: MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD.

That is all you have ………………. sad 🙁

Theodore Fenton

People who have enjoyed a privileged status in society often take unkindly to a level playing field. In time, you’ll get used to it.

Amos Moses

“often take unkindly to a level playing field.”

Like the rest of your post-modern definitions ………. it is skewed ………….. and corrupted…..

“In time, you’ll get used to it.”

No ………….. and neither will you …………….

Amos Moses

Equating race to depravity …………… is Racist ……….. many racists say they are “racialists” …… so you fit right in ………………..

Josey

I think Justin Trudeau and Obama are two peas from the same pod. I have a Christian friend who lives in Canada, haven’t had a chance to chat with her in awhile and I pray she is holding strong against this agenda, please say a prayer for her and her family. Her name is Sara, ty.

bowie1

Justin Trudeau is part of the Liberal Party and as you say a little off topic.

BanIgnorance

Humans are individuals.
Livestock move in herds and think in herds.

Gutless politicians like these are the scum of the earth. They sleep around, they have no clue what real marriage is like and don’t care, for them marriage is just a social convenience, for they figure a marriage “in name only” is just fine. The probably with democracy is that trashy people inevitably elect trashy politicians.

Theodore Fenton

Humans are tribal.

BanIgnorance

How do you know?

bill@19D

so enlighten us, that is real marriage? what is it about “real marriage” that only enables heterosexuals to partake in it while excluding gay couples?

Amos Moses

Homosexuals can take part in a real marriage ………….. just not too another homosexual ……….. as that is not a marriage …………. and you do not even need to ask the question as to what a real marriage is ………. you already know that ……..

Theodore Fenton

Well, we can since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining unconstitutional state bans on same-sex marriage. Before that historic ruling, however, we could not marry in all states.

Amos Moses

The SCOTUS did nothing to alter the truth ………………. that a homosexual “marriage” is not a marriage ……………. sorry to disabuse you of your notion ……………

Theodore Fenton

Your “truth” is merely your opinion.

Amos Moses

It is not my truth ……… there is only the truth …………. and it is not an opinion …..

Amos Moses

Truth is not a what …….. nor does anyone own it ………… the Truth is a Person …………

bill@19D

That would be like saying, black people can take part in real marriage, as long as it is to someone of the same race. Bans on inter-racial marriage were still a ban on marriage becasue it blocked inter-racial couples from marriage and in the same way bans on same sex marriage were still a ban on marriage becasue it blocked same sex couples from marriage. and yes, it is a marriage becasue the law says it is. I am not talking about if it is marriage in the eyes of God right now but rather if it is marriage in the eyes of the law. God does not need to recognize the marriage for it to be a marriage, God must recognize it for it to have His blessing but that is not the same question as the ability to marry.

Amos Moses

“That would be like saying, black people can take part in real marriage, ”

No, and that is trying to conflate race with depravity ………………. and it is RACIST ………. and a LOSER argument ………… Racism …………………

bill@19D

It is not racist at all. The mechanics of denying marriage to inter-racial couples and same sex couples was identical. also the legal case for removing the bans was the same. now you could still say that the ban on one was justified while the ban on the other was not but that is an argument on the merits and not an argument on the mechanics of the ban. so if we are going to talk about the mechanics of the ban the comparison is valid and I will continue to make it. if you want to say that the ban on same sex marriage was justified you would need to show how it served a valid purpose while the ban on inter-racial marriage served no valid purpose.

Amos Moses

“It is not racist at all. The mechanics of denying marriage to inter-racial couples and same sex couples was identical.”

Depravity has NOTHING to do with race ……………. Skin is not Sin …… and you are trying to conflate the two …… and it is RACIST ……………….. You are trying to use RACE ……………. RACISM ………. That is a RACIST argument …………..

bill@19D

Racism: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” nothing in my argument is that thus it is not racist. also as I just clarified I am making a comparison based on the mechanics of the ban or the legal argument agasint it. as I also just clarified you could make the argument that one ban was valid but the other one was not but if we are to make an argument based on the mechanics or the legality of the ban the comparison is valid.

the merits of the two bans may be different but thus far I have yet to see any justification for the ban on same sex marriage that can stand up to scrutiny or make the ban valid. you do not like the argument becasue highlights just how much the arguments agasint same sex marriage overlap with arguments agasint inter-racial marriage.

BTW people also said that the mixing of the races was a sin so in both cases the opponents could make the argument that what they were opposing was a sin.

Amos Moses

“Racism: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.””

Yeah ………… and you are conflating race and depravity ……………. there is no comparison and for anyone to draw that comparison is ………… “antagonism directed against someone of a different (or ANY) race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior” ….. or in this case ….. DEPRAVITY ………… being black or any other race IS NOT DEPRAVED ……….. homosexuality is ………………………. and it is racist to conflate the two ……….. to say that one is like the other …………….. IT IS NOT ………………

bill@19D

only I am not conflating race and depravity, rather I am saying that the mechanics of the ban or the legal argument agasint it for both bans on inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage are the same. again perhaps you should re-read the argument and see what is being said before posting responses. even if you think homosexuality is a sin by argument is not comparing homosexuality and race, rather it is saying that the mechanics of the bans and the legal case agasint them is very much comparable.

secondly I do not see homosexuality as depravity but rather a normal and natural part of the human condition just like gender or skin color. thus I am comparing one natural trait to another. so if I was making the comparison using your assumptions then sure, it may have racist roots but if I am making the argument from my starting point it is very clearly not at all racist.

Amos Moses

“only I am not conflating race and depravity, ”

Only ………… Yes You Are ………….. you are drawing an equality ………… you are conflating …. and you are not just saying being homosexual is like being black or any other race ………. you are saying …. conversely ……….. that being of another race ………….. IS DEPRAVITY ……….. and that is RACISM……………. and it is a RACIST STATEMENT …………..

Theodore Fenton

It’s not racist. It’s racial.

Amos Moses

IT IS DECIDEDLY RACIST …………………

bill@19D

obviously I am not saying that being of another race is depravity. Clearly you just ignored everything I just said and you are not making any serious attempt to engage in conversation but rather are only repeating fully baseless accusations. if you are interested in having a conversation then please read and respond to what is actually said becasue my last reply corrected your mis-representation of what I am saying yet you ignored that and just repeated the same mis-representation.

Amos Moses

“obviously I am not saying that being of another race is depravity.”

BUT in fact YOU ARE …………. when you conflate, equate ………. you are saying one is equal to another ……A=B…….. so if you say homosexuals plight is the same as blacks and their civil rights struggles………. then you are saying they are the same ………. and ……….. you are saying blacks are like homosexuals and depraved ………….. and that is a lie ….. and it is RACIST ……………….. Skin is not Sin ……….

bill@19D

No I am not. first of all it was a specific argument about the mechanics of the bans and the legal case agasint it, not the two groups of people or the level of justification for the ban.

secondly and once again I am clearly not saying that blacks are depraved like homosexuals becasue I do not see either as depraved. rather I am saying that both are natural and normal parts of who a person is. But it is 100% absurd and wrong to impose your view of homosexuality into my argument and then claim that my argument is racist. in that case it is no longer my argument but your misrepresentation of my argument.

TheKingOfRhye

It’s only racist in your view because you think homosexuality is “depravity.” Not everyone thinks that.

Amos Moses

So What if they do not …………. they are ENTITLED to the truth ………… whether they like the truth or not ………… Depravity causes premature death …………. and no one suffers from that ………… as much as homosexuals …………….. death is a pretty certain statistic …

Obituraries numbering 6516 from 16 US homosexual journals over 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity, the median age of death of married men was 75, 80% of them died old, 65 or older. For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died old.

Married women averaged age 79 at death, 85% died old, and unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

However, the median age of death for homosexuals was virtually the same nationwide, and overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDs was the cause of death, the median age was 39 years old. For the 829 homosexuals who died of something else besides AIDS, the median age was 42 years of age, and 9% died old. Of 163 lesbians, the median age was 44 years of age, and 20% died old. 2.8% of homosexuals died violently and they were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more apt to commit suicide, and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times greater than comparably aged white males. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident, a rate 487 times greater than that of white females aged 25 to 44.

The essence of depravity …………….. and we do them no favors by NOT telling them this TRUTH ……………… nor by ENCOURAGING them in their pursuit ……….. and it is not my view …………….. it is a statistical view ………….. if you truly love them …………. WHY do you ENCOURAGE early death on them ……………..

Chip01

Go Canada! That’s awesome news for humanity.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

When the winner of the Canadian n US Federal election is finely balanced between 2 major parties, the votes of minorities, eg the 3% LGBTQs, can become very sought after or become the king-makers.

In USA, there r also the minorities of 14% Blacks n 14% Hispanics.

Since the 1960s, the liberal Democrats of the Blue States hv managed to split/divide the majority 70% Whites by pandering to unions n minimum wage workers, feminists, atheists, LGBTQs, the sexually immoral(porn industry), the lazy n irresponsible poor, environmentalists, etc.
…….The Whites’ interests r mostly being ignored by the politicians, even to the extent of Whites being discriminated against, eg hate crime laws, loss of jobs to illegal Mexican immigrants, etc.

Since the 1960s, the power-crazy n vote-pandering liberal Blue States(= Democrats n Rinos) hv caused USA to descend into moral n financial bankruptcy, eg 50% divorce rate, high crime rate, US$19+ trillion in debt, etc.
…….USA is no more a land of milk n honey. USA is not a happy n safe place to live in anymore.

US n Canadian Christians, esp the Whites, only hope left is for the return of Jesus Christ to earth.

Brad F

We all know that the “marriage” issue and the “transphobia” issue were intended as stepping-stones to the grand prize: legalization of pedophilia. I’m betting that within a year, probably less, you’ll be called “bigots” if you don’t want your sons sodomized by “caring and compassionate counselors.” These people take their vacations in the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and Thailand, havens for underage sex, and that was fun while it lasted, but they’d prefer to have access to boys who are not only nearby but free for the asking, just convince the gullible public that Christian parents are evil bigots, and these “gay kids” need “counseling,” and you’ve got the ultimate case of foxes being invited into the chicken house, cheered on by the media as liberating those poor kids from their hate-filled parents. Since Canada is the cutting edge, they’ll legalize pedophilia before we do, and you’ll get the same sort of comments as on this thread: hey, Canada did it! It must be good!
We’re about ten levels below wherever Sodom and Gomorrah were.

Chip01

Wait. Didn’t the church already pretty much give the green light to pedophile-priests? I mean, how many boys and girls were victims until the church finally did anything about it?? And even then, the church cared about $ first.

Ronald Carter

Um…what?
Pedophilia, as I’m sure I don’t need to explain to you, is the abuse of a child by an adult.
This issue is about gay marriage…the union of two consenting ADULTS.
Homosexuals are not pedophiles, and nothing suggests a correlation between them. So why are you drawing this utterly baseless and bizarre conclusion? No one, not the media, not even “hate-filled parents”, whatever THOSE are, defends pedophilia. Yes, I have heard of NAMBLA. No, no one takes them seriously.
You need to lay off the brown acid. The issue is same-sex marriage. NOT pedophilia. This is a slope so slippery no one’s going to join you as you slide down it.

Amos Moses

“Pedophilia, as I’m sure I don’t need to explain to you, is the abuse of a child by an adult.”

And most homosexuals will admit to either being taken as a child or to taking children ………… either pedo- or pederasty

Ronald Carter

No, that’s crazy, sorry. I know many homosexuals. None were abused as children and none is attracted to children.

Amos Moses

And why would they admit to a crime ………. if they did …………

Ronald Carter

And why would straight people?

Amos Moses

Let me be specific …………. why would they admit it to you ……………. and why would you ask ……… i don’t see people volunteering such information if not asked …….

bill@19D

which then begs the question, on what grounds do you claim to know that they did it? if you are going to come back and say well we do not know for sure that they did not do it then you likewise do not know that they did do it. and if we do not know that people committed a crime we treat them as innocent until proven guilty.

Amos Moses

“which then begs the question, ”

No, that is you NOT answering the question ………. and the position still stands …… they were mostly abused as children and if given the opportunity …….. probably would ………… Most people caught sexually abusing children identify as having homosexual or trans-whatever thoughts or are ……. They SELF IDENTIFY ………….

bill@19D

No it is pointing out that you have ZERO evidence for your claim. you make the claim but then you have nothing to back it up. unless you can provide proof that most gay people were molested as kids or molest kids themselves your claim will continue to be unfounded and nothing more then a baseless attempt to demonize gay people.

Amos Moses

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3)

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia, in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

This is mostly transgendered statistics ……… but it applies ………….. sex criminals are sex criminals …..

bill@19D

yes it all is talking about transgender issues and no, it does not apply. you can not take statistics about one population and then apply it to a completely different population. that says nothing about gay people or your claim that most gay men were sexually abused as children or abuse children. If you want to make that claim about gay men then you would need evidence about gay men, not another population group that you then use to misrepresent gay people.

Amos Moses

Sexual deviants know no bounds ……….. it applies …….

bill@19D

No it does not apply. You can not take statistics about one group of people and apply that to a completely other group and claim that it applies. this would be like me taking stats about Muslims and then applying them to an unsupported claim I made about Christians and then expecting you to accept the argument as true. If you can not back up your argument then have the decency to admit that it was unfounded and move on to a new argument.

Amos Moses

Child molestation and pedophilia occur far more commonly among homosexuals than among heterosexuals on a per capita basis, according to a new study.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.

Baldwin is the executive director of the Council for National Policy in Washington, D.C.

“It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh,” wrote Baldwin. “However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family.”

Though the homosexual community and much of the media scoff at such accusations, Baldwin – who chaired the California Assembly’s Education committee, where he fought against support for the homosexual agenda in the state’s public schools – says in his report that homosexual activists’ “efforts to target children both for their own sexual pleasure and to enlarge the homosexual movement” constitute an “unmistakable” attack on “the family unit.”

Baldwin’s research is substantiated in a recently completed body of work written by Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education and author of numerous authoritative books debunking sexual myths, including “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.”

In her thesis – also written for the Regent University Law Review – Reisman cited psychologist Eugene Abel, whose research found that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls. …”

Abel also found that non-incarcerated “child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender … whose targets were males.”

see at least that was on topic. but here you cite claims from two individuals that push a highly debunked myth that pedophilia is connected to homosexuality. the claims made here are absurd and we can see how discredited these people are based on what they say. for example Baldwin makes the absurd claim that homosexuality is something that people are “recruited” into….”to enlarge the homosexual movement” but of course homosexuality is NOT something that people can be recruited into nor does sexual abuse make people gay.

then you have Judith Reisman. she launched her own personal crusade agasint the Kinsey institute but her claims were not substantiated in court. her case agasint the Kinsey institute was dismissed with prejudice in 1994 and yet she continues to peddle the same discredited claims. so neither of those who are credible nor do their arguments stand up to scrutiny.

For a good place to start in terms of learning the truth about this anti-gay myth google top 10 anti-gay myths and click on the SPLC link.

bill@19D

Homosexuality does NOT lead to pedophilia. saying that homosexuality leads to pedophilia is just as wrong as saying that heterosexuality leads to pedophilia. saying that homosexuality is okay in no way would mean that suddenly it is okay to molest kids. so the jump between homosexuality and pedophilia is non-existent nor is there any grounds for a case to legalize pedophilia.

Amos Moses

“Homosexuality does NOT lead to pedophilia.”

Yes, it does and most homosexuals will admit to either being taken as children or to taking children …………….. once you cross a certain line ……. it is all down hill …. and even if what you say is true …………. normalizing it with such nonsense as homosexual “marriage” …………… does lead to it ……….

bill@19D

No most homosexuals will not admit to being taken as children or to taking children becasue that is not true for most gay people. the idea that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia is an anti-gay myth that has no basis in reality. also why would same sex marriage lead to pedophilia? what is the connection between allowing gay couples to get married and saying that it is okay to molest kids? the answer is that there is no connection.

Amos Moses

“No most homosexuals will not admit to being taken as children or to taking children becasue that is not true for most gay people.”

Do you need to see the video ………………..

bill@19D

which video? there is no video out there which shows that most gay people either were molested as kids or molest kids themselves.

Amos Moses

Gay Child Molesters Caught on Tape! Hidden Cam. Explicit Content!

on the youtube machine ………….

bill@19D

so becasue video of gay child molesters exists that means that most gay people were molested or molested kids themselves? sorry but that is just not at all correct.

by the same token then the fact that video of heterosexual child molesters exists would mean that most heterosexual people were molested or molested kids themselves. this is clearly an incorrect assumption to make and it is incorrect becasue you can not take the experience of a few people and pretend that it applies to the larger population. yes some gay people molest kids just like some heterosexual people molest kids. but that no more links homosexuality to pedophilia then heterosexuality is linked to pedophilia.

The 2 highest markers for a home where child abuse is committed is 1) a father with a drug or alcohol abuse problem and 2) a family that practices a fundamental religion with strict sexual mores.

Grace Kim Kwon

Will true Christians have to run away from the perv Canada into some parts of USA for religious freedom? That will be a reversal to what they did to black slaves in the 19th century. Nations have no freedom apart from the Biblical principles, be it Canada or the USA. The Western nations are oppressive when they do not follow Biblical Christianity.

Grace Kim Kwon

Do the secular Western nations hate Christianity because Christians brought racial equality last century? No submission to the bored rich Western pervs. Enough atrocities done by the Western rich pervs and their dogs on Planet Earth. (Revelation ch. 22) They can take away wealth, but they can’t take away truth or conscience from mankind. All children have rights to morality. God will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah in His time.

Grace Kim Kwon

It’ll be too late if perv Canada apologizes to the Christian victims 100 years later. Enough of secular West’s hypocritic apologies to historic people. The Western pervs are NOT sorry for any atrocities against the minorities. Stop persecuting the Christians now. Everyone has rights to God’s truth and morality. The Western culture has no rights to define marriage. Only the Word of God does. Marriage is between one man and one woman according to the Holy Bible. Period.

Reason2012

// Conservative delegates voted overwhelmingly Saturday at their national convention to effectively accept same-sex marriage, a move Tory MPs and leadership candidates said modernizes their party and sends an important message to Canadians. //
You’re not a conservative if you’re seeking to normalize perversion and attack what God says.

And it’s often the tactic to call promotion of perversion being “modern” or “progressive”.

// In a vote of 1,036-462, Conservative members – following a passionate debate – voted to take a neutral position on marriage and no longer define it as “the union of one man and one woman.” //
You never defined it to begin with – God did, at the beginning. It’s hubris to think we can redefine what God defined.

// Rural Manitoba Conservative MP Ted Falk said the proposed policy change was “not about inclusiveness,” but was instead an “attack on our values and principles.” //

Bingo. Next up:
– Activists go into your schools and expose all kids, even as young as kindergarten, to images and ideas of homosexuality. Parents are not told and the ones who find out are told “shut up – it’s legal now”
– Sue businesses that do not support same-gender marriages with their businesses
– Sue you for hate crimes for even daring to hint that you believe marriage should be one man and one woman
– Start forcing same-gender behavior onto cartoon characters, tv characters and so on.
– Teach the other lie that pedophiles are “born that way” and hence should be accepted as well
– Refuse help for those who no longer want same-gender attraction and make it a crime to help them (because after all: genetics trumps feelings)
– Start normalizing transgenderism (because after all, if you feel like you were supposed to be a woman, then your feelings trumps genetics).

God continues to give people up to perversions that give Him up.

bill@19D

you wrongly assume that God is the only one who can define marriage. This is not correct as marriage also comes in the form of civil marriage which is created and defined by man. The government is not saying that same sex marriage is marriage in the eyes of God, rather they are saying that same sex marriage is legal marriage in the eyes of the law. there is a big difference. What God says about marriage does not negate what the law says about marriage, the two are independent of each other and so they can and do differ as to what is a marriage. so the truth is that marriage means more then one thing and that its meaning differs depending on who is granting the status of marriage. this is not about truth changing becasue a statement about civil marriage does not imply that marriage in the eyes of God has changed. as soon as the two are not wrongly confused it is easy to see how this is not an issue.

Reason2012

Marriage existed long before there were any governments or laws – it was defined by God at the beginning. Anything else “defined” by man is not marriage, even if they try to call it marriage.
It’s a violation of the establishment clause for the government to pass laws to RE-define what they never defined to begin with – to in effect create their own version of religious institutions, and then people get fined, sued and treated like a criminal if they dare to not get in line with the State Religion on this act and hence violate their own Christian beliefs on the matter.

Jalapeno

No religious beliefs get to claim the word “marriage”.

It has more than just a religious meaning now. It’s also societally and legally defined, and no matter how many times you copy-paste bible verses, many Christians think that gay marriage is acceptable too. So..it’s still not a religious institution, neither are the businesses created to deal with things like cakes.

Reason2012

It’s not just a word: it’s a word used to point out what God defined. It’s why it wasn’t enough for perversion activists to have ‘civil unions’ even with all the same legal benefits and protections trivially added – they needed to attack what God defined hence DEMANDED they call it marriage instead. Shows what their real motivation truly was.

Marriage is a claim by God that two come together and become one physically (only possible with a man and a woman), and that hence any other configuration is not a marriage

There are many “Christians” that also think other kinds of sins are ok with God – doesn’t make them right there, either.

Just verifies yet again how God pointed out how many will enter into destruction, few will find eternal life, and many who call Christ “Lord” will still end up in_hell.

Matthew 7:13-15 “[Jesus said] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. ..”

And as to false pastors that teach this anti-Christ doctrine:

“.. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

What chance have those who teach the lie that God says marriage can be between two people of the same gender and that hence homosexual behavior is also just fine? What chance have they got to be little more than those who are teaching fruits of iniquity, deceiving others that God is supposedly ok with it?

Matthew 7:19-23 “[Jesus said] Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Jalapeno

” It’s why it wasn’t enough for perversion activists to have ‘civil unions’ even with all the same legal benefits and protections trivially added ”

Why would it be?

‘Seperate but equal’ isnt’ really a thing in our law system. ‘

The protections are for the contract of marriage, and..there’s no reason to change how its called except to protect some peoples feelings. So..no, not good enough, and your religious beliefs still do not have a claim over a word.

TheKingOfRhye

“it wasn’t enough for perversion activists to have ‘civil unions’ even
with all the same legal benefits and protections trivially added”

Except they didn’t give all the same benefits and protections, in most cases. At best, if they did, it was ‘separate but equal’.

bill@19D

there is marriage as it exists in the eyes of God and then there is marriage as defined by man. saying that anything defined by man is not marriage is 100% wrong because it assumes that marriage can only be used to describe marriage as blessed by God which is not the case. the word marriage has more then one meaning. it can mean both what God blesses as marriage and what the law recognizes as marriage. the use of the word in one setting does not preclude the use of the word in another setting.

with that in mind it is not at all a violation of the establishment clause for the government to pass laws in regards to marriage becasue the word marriage is not reserved only for religious use. civil marriage is not a religious institution, it is a legal institution. the problem with your argument is that it fails to acknowledge the difference between the religious and civil definitions of marriage or the reality that both can exist and are independent of each other.

Reason2012

Jesus pointed out that marriage is between one man and one woman:

Matthew 19:4-6 “And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Jesus even points out that for the cause of making them male and female, this is why male will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.

Mark 10:5-7 “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;”

Jesus said God made them male and female – not male and male – not female and female.

Jesus said man shall leave father and mother, not father and father, not mother and mother.

Jesus said man shall cleave to his wife, not to his husband, not to her wife.

1 Corinthians 7:2 “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”

Not to mention Jesus is God, so the entire Word of God is the Words of Christ. As Jesus is The Word.

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

The Lord rebukes us for our attempts to destroy what He defined as one man and one woman.

It doesn’t work anymore to call any who do not agree with the attempts of activists to legally re-define morals as having a phobia or being a bigot – people are realizing those are the only hateful actions here.

We need to get back to the truth of God.

May God / Jesus Christ be glorified.

Theodore Fenton

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth (homosexuals), and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Charles

Why do you keep pushing this lie? This verse doesn’t have a thing to do with homosexuality.. Just stop.

Reason2012

This means some will not get married – not that some will make up their own definition of marriage or promote homosexuality.

Your claim that Enuch means “homosexual” is false. Notice you ignored the rest of the verse, and pretend only the first use of Eunuch means “homosexual”, which exposes your dishonesty.

“.. there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, “
So homosexuals can make others homosexual now?

“.. and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs..”
So a person can “make themselves” homosexuals?

“.. for the sake of the kingdom of heaven..”
So God points out homosexual behavior is a sin, but now you want to pretend people are made homosexual by others and make themselves homosexual, all for the kingdom of heaven’s sake?

No. Perverting scripture to say the least.

It means castrated.
And yes, some are born that way, some are castrated by others by force, and some get themselves castrated to avoid sexual immorality.

And those who are castrated cannot marry as marrying is to become one via male/female_intercourse.

Theodore Fenton

Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. (For a complete discussion of the term “born eunuch” and the connection with homosexuality, see The Early Church Welcomed a Gay Man.) As a reasonably informed person of his time, Jesus would have been aware of this common view of eunuchs. Yet he very matter-of-factly asserts that some people are simply born that way. The implication of his statement is profound — God created gay people the way they are! Jesus says so.

Unlike Rabbi Eliezer, Jesus feels no need to “cure” these born eunuchs. He speaks no words of condemnation. Rather he lists people born gay alongside another honored class (eunuchs for the kingdom), and accepts them as a natural part of God’s creation order.

Thus, when Matthew 19 is read as a whole, we see Jesus teaches that most people are created for heterosexual marriage. (We too accept this as God’s predominant creation paradigm.) But, unlike some modern Christians, Jesus does not see this as the only honorable way to live. He acknowledges that some human beings have been created by God to follow a less common, but equally legitimate path. There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God.

— From Would Jesus Discriminate? Biblical Evidence

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

eunuch
ˈjuːnək/noun
noun: eunuch; plural noun: eunuchs

a man who has been castrated, especially (in the past) one employed to guard the women’s living areas at an oriental court.

Theodore Fenton

I seriously doubt Jesus had access to Merriam Webster.

It is interesting to note that Jesus does not state or imply that born eunuchs exit the womb with genital deformities. Instead, Jesus makes a distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who have been physically castrated, whether by illness or by men.

Jesus makes a further distinction between born eunuchs and eunuchs who make a personal choice to voluntarily abstain from sexual relationships for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

The distinctions below, so carefully articulated by Jesus, imply that born eunuchs are not required to abstain from sexual relationships such as a committed, same sex marriage. Some Christians believe that born eunuchs were often homosexual eunuchs. Abstinence from sexual relationships particularly describes the third class of eunuchs and possibly the second class but not the first class, whom Jesus referred to as born eunuchs.

This distinction becomes important when confronting Complementarian assertions that limit marriage to the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. God does not assert that limitation in scripture. Instead, Jesus carefully exempts eunuchs from the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm. Eunuchs, according to Jesus, cannot receive His saying about Adam and Eve style marriage.

Looks like u r just trying to misinterpret the Word of God/Jesus at MATT.19:11-12, to create the lie that JC approved of homosexuality.
……. Fyi, Jesus Christ is also God-in-the-flesh.(JOHN.1:14 & 1TIM.3:16 & ACTS.9:5)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

LEV.18:22 = 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

ROM.1: = 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

1COR.6: = 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

REV.21: = 6 And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes shall inherit all things,[d] and I will be his God and he shall be My son.

8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[e] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Amos Moses

“– From GayChristian101”

So now a contradiction in terms is used as a credible source ……… of christianity and christian teaching …………. WOW! ………….. the reprobate mind really has taken hold …………

Theodore Fenton

There are many roads to victory.

LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

There are many roads leading to destruction. There is only one road leading to God and Eternal Life.

Reason2012

Adults continue to permanently turn away from homosexuality, even after decades of believing the lie they were “born that way”, proving it’s not genetic, but the product of indoctrination, confusion, mental instability and/or abuse.

Homosexual behavior is most literally pointed out as a sin, and God has not changed on that regard. But if a person has those inclinations but does not act upon them, does not dwell in lust upon others, but is instead struggling against them to avoid them, then it’s not a sin. It’s just like sinful inclinations of any kind: it’s acting upon it when it becomes a sin.

And this is what God says about sin and specifically the behavior of homosexuality:

Romans 1:26-27 ”For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their_lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 ”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [men who willingly take on the part of a “woman” with another man], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [s odomites], (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:9-10 ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (10) For_whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind [s odomites], for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

Jude 1:7 ”Even as_Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Luke 17:29 ”[Jesus said] But the same day that Lot went out of_Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.”

Matthew 19:4-6 ”And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Jesus made it quite clear God made us male and female so that a man will leave his father and mother (not two fathers, not three mothers and so on) and cleave onto his wife (not his husband and so on).

The Word of God rebukes us all – even if we all try to say we don’t believe the Bible, the very Word of God will be our judge when we face Him. And God is a righteous judge and will judge us all – not turn a blind eye to our sin. Do not be deceived by the world: it’s God we will have to convince that His word was a lie, not men. What happened in Noah’s day when the entire world rejected God? Did God spare them because there were so many? No – they all perished except for Noah and his family!

Proverbs 9:10 ”The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.”

God spared not His chosen people – we are kidding ourselves if we think He will spare the United States of America if we choose to blatantly turn away from Him.

Jeremiah 12:17 ”But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD.”

Luke 17:28-30 “So also as it was in the days of Lot: they ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; (29) but the day Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from the heaven and destroyed them all. (30) Even so it shall be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

Romans 1:18-32 “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, m urder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

The entire Bible points out men having_sex with men is an abomination. Likewise woman having_sex with women. It’s not just Paul that pointed it out.

Genesis 19:4-13 “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of S odom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them [men wanting to have_sex with men].

And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing [he offers his daughters to be_raped to keep them from having_sex with another man – shows_rape is not the issue but male on male_sex]; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.”

These two messengers were sent to destroy that place before the event where they tried to_rape these messengers.

Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination …”

Even cross-dressing is an abomination:

Deuteronomy 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no_whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a s odomite of the sons of Israel.”

1 Kings 22:46 “And the remnant of the s odomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.”

1 Kings 15:11-12 “And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the s odomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

2 Kings 23:7 “And he brake down the houses of the s odomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

Ezekiel 16:49-50 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister S odom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”

And the “pride” parades about homosexuality are more of the same.

Matthew 19:4-5 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

Not father and father. Not mother and mother. Not his husband.

And only two people of opposite gender can become “one flesh”.

Live forever, people – not temporarily only to be cast out for living for the things of this world.

May God/Jesus Christ be glorified!

TheKingOfRhye

Same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada 11 years ago. The party’s opposition to it apparently didn’t make any difference.

Ronald Carter

Yes, and in that 11 years, it didn’t turn into Sodom/Gomorrah.

Gal 5:22-23

Sodom and Gormorrah was about trying to keep poor travelers and immigrants out of their lands, there is a contemporary group trying to do the same.

I bet they would have walled their borders if they could too.

Amos Moses

LOL …………. WOW ……….. Make pretzels much? …………..

Theodore Fenton

Yes, we all know what you WANT the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to mean.

Amos Moses

No ………….. it is not what i want it to mean ……… it is your twisted use of scripture AGAIN ……………..

Theodore Fenton

You already twisted it before I ever got to it.

Amos Moses

LOL …………. you do not even know what it says …………..

Sandy Moran

Congratulations to same sex couples in Canada! Most Americans are very happy for you.

archaeologist

there goes the conservative party.

bill@19D

why? becasue it doped its opposition to marriage equality? the conservative party should respect marriage and that should include supporting the good that marriage does for gay couples. dropping the opposition to marriage equality is in line with a party that supports marriage as a social good and wants to support marriage. it was always strange to talk about wanting to support marriage and yet think that it had to be denied to gay people in order to be supported.

Reason2012

Some try to pretend it’s about “marriage equality”, yet

– Every single adult already had the same right to marry one person of the opposite gender. No one was being denied this right.
– They’re against other forms of “marriage”, like adult women marrying their dad – so much for their claims of “marriage equality” – they do exactly that which they condemn

So much for the claims of “marriage equality” – the deception they use to disarm people into allowing it.

bill@19D

#1 every single adult already had the same right to marry one person of the same race. No one was being denied this right. Yes bans on inter-racial marriage did not make it impossible for people to marry, they could still marry someone of the same race, but it did deny marriage to inter-racial couples. in the same way while bans on same-sex marriage did not make it impossible for people to marry as they could marry someone of the other sex it did deny marriage to same sex couples. so it was about inter-racial couples or same sex couples being denied marriage equality (they were not treated equally with same race or heterosexual couples).

#2 marriage equality is a phrase used to describe the need to give same sex couples marriage equality to heterosexual couples. this is not to mean that all restrictions on marriage must go away, rather that marriage should be applied equally to couples who follow the same form and function. thus unless something could be pointed to which would differentiate all heterosexual couples from same sex couples on a substantive issue, there was nothing, they would both be granted the same recognition of marriage.

so marriage equality was not about deception, you must look at what is meant by the term and the specific case that was being made. thanks.

Reason2012

#1 The Bible says nothing about marriage not being allowed between different races – one man and one woman. It should have never been restricted between white and black people as that had nothing to do with the definition.

#2 Except you ignore one crucial flaw: Marriage is not defined as “If two entities love each other they can get married”. If an adult woman loves her father, she still can’t marry her, and even activists will point out that’s not a marriage. Marriage is defined as one woman and one man and every single person has that right – hence marriage equality. Don’t want that right? Want something else instead? That’s not inequality: that’s demanding a special right.

More people are waking up to the deception they use to slip it under the radar with less opposition.

And now they’re trying to same tactics with transgenders, but as you can see America is catching on and there’s much more opposition.

bill@19D

#1 the Bible is not the controlling force for civil marriage which is what we are talking about here. civil marriage is not based on what the Bible says about marriage, rather it is created and defined by man and can differ from religious definitions of marriage.

#2 marriage is not only defined as one man and one woman. and when it is limited in that way that is not a justification for the restriction, rather it is just stating what the restriction is. It has been demonstrated that marriage can include same sex couples so the question you are faced with is not can it but should it. I know that marriage can include same sex couples so if you want to say that marriage should not be defined that way you would need to say why. you would need to cite something that makes heterosexual couples qualified to receive the recognition of marriage that same sex couples lack. without that you are saying that we should treat same sex couples differently without a valid justification for that lack of equality. but again this is a should question given that the definition of marriage can be open to same sex couples.

Theodore Fenton

Yes, that pesky hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it?

Theodore Fenton

A single adult marrying a single person of the opposite gender is opposite-sex marriage.

ShemSilber

And these were “conservatives”? What in the world were they conserving except the lies of Azazel, the devil, the satanic one (a.k.a. Allah of Islam) who rebelled and took a third of the angels with him in rebellion against the Creator, teaching people how to be like them, for “the thief comes not but to steal, to kill and to destroy” (John 10:10).

From the beginning the Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus), per John 1:1-18; 8:58; 1Corinthians 10:4; Colossians 1:16, has give His creation a choice between living according to His instructions that lead to life and going one’s own way, as Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 says we have done, which is why the Master Yahushua had to descend from the heavens by way of the virgin’s womb in order to provide atonement for the sins of all mankind with His precious blood and assurance of everlasting life by His resurrection. As Paul explains in Romans–read the book!–His sacrifice does not give us permission to keep on sinning, keep on going against Torah, “so that grace may abound,” but that we should walk in newness of life, living by the Torah. As Psalm 111:10 says, “The fear of Yahuwah is the BEGINNING of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who DO His commandments.”

If we don’t even have that beginning, we have nothing and are going nowhere, and our Father Yahuwah Almighty still gives us all ample time to repent of our evils and turn to Him for a makeover through our Master Yahushua. Praise Yahuwah for His patience with us foolish mortals, omein!

Guest

I no longer recognize my country.

bill@19D

why becasue it lets gay people marry? if that causes you to not recognize your country then I hate to break it to you but you never recognized your country to begin with. good or bad allowing gay people to marry does not fundamentally change the nation. you could say that it improves the nation or harms the nation depending on if you see same sex marriage as a good or bad thing but in neither case would that make the nation unrecognizable.

Guest

Because it’s a nanny state. Because there’s no choice. Because political correctness has run amuck. Because health care is in the drain. Because taxes are sky high and there is nothing to show for it.

bill@19D

well none of that has to do with same sex marriage being legalized or the conservative party finally drooping its opposition to same sex marriage. so given those reasons it is strange that connect that feeling to this article.

Guest

You failed to comprehend my point: that there is no longer choice in Canada. The Conservative and Liberal Parties have morphed into one.

bill@19D

Ah okay I see now, thanks for the clarification. well I think it is safe to say that there are some issues on which opposing political parties should agree. It is not like the parties are required to disagree on everything, rather we should want to see agreement on certain issues with both sides seeing a good thing as a good thing and supporting it. this would be one of those times, both sides recognizing that there is no value in them opposing same sex marriage and thus neither running on opposing it.

So on that note i would say that cross party agreement on some points can be a great thing and I would see this as one of those times.

Guest

Your opinion is just that – an opinion – and leaves out choice for others. The Reform Party never should have joined the Conservative Party.

bill@19D

well to be clear no one is shutting down choice for others here, rather this was a political party making a decision about itself. the party voted to change its own platform. It is their Job to update their policy as to reflect what the party wishes to stand for and put forth as its goals. But at any rate thanks for the explanation as it is now more clear what you were referring to in your initial comment, a larger trend and you see this as part of that.

Guest

Many conservatives are upset with the decision and feel they’ve lost control of their own party. It’s a few elite who are calling the shots on every side.

bill@19D

and yet the change was supported by a majority of the party. I understand that many will be opposed to it but at the end of the day it is impossible for a political party to please everyone. given that marriage equality has been around in Canada for over a decade without any negative consequences it seems safe for a political party to drop its opposition and embrace the growing support and realization that while some feared the change in reality it has not been bad but rather something that should be supported.

So I guess I am saying that there is a difference between doing something that everyone supports, almost impossible, and doing something that most support and want and that is viewed as the right decision to make. perhaps after all of that you still feel betrayed by the party and still see it as the wrong call in which case the party has to live with that lost supporter or at least dissatisfied supporter.

Guest

The party elite, not the party members.

bill@19D

well but the change in opinion applies to party members as well. in 2015 49% of conservative aligned voters said that they supported same sex marriage while 41% said they disproved of same sex marriage. 70% of the general population supported same sex marriage. so its not like the change in the party’s position was disconnected from changes in the opinions of its members. as time goes on that percentage of support withing the conservative party will grow even more.

Guest

Your stats are not credible.

bill@19D

Yes they are credible. they were taken by a major polling firm and they track with a change in acceptance that has been happening for years. it also trends closely with the Polling that we have seen done in the US, only it records more support then in the US which is to be expected given that Canada has had marriage equality longer then the US. the support in conservative affiliation lags behind the overall support but that is also to be expected and even with that lag we are now at a point where more support same sex marriage then oppose it. you may not like the shift in public opinion but it is real and it is not unique to Canada but rather holds true when jurisdictions approve same sex marriage. having same sex marriage speeds up support for it becasue people see it first hand and see that it is not a problem or a threat.

Guest

Your claims are bogus. The majority of conservatives do not support same sex unions. That’s the purpose of having multiple parties, so that multiple views are represented. If both parties have morphed into one, what’s the point? Where’s the choice? Canada has always been tolerant of EVERYONE’s viewpoint – until now. I no longer recognize my country.

bill@19D

Do you have polling that says different? if not then my point stands, using the polling I shared yes, more conservatives support same sex marriage then oppose it. 49% support while 41% oppose.

secondly and as I have stated before having multiple parties does not mean that the parties must disagree on everything. there may be some issues on which there is so much agreement that all of the parties have the same position. If a certain view is not represented at all it is becasue it is so much in the minority that no party will hold to it. but there is no requirement that all views have a party that will hold to it. if opposition to same sex marriage drops low enough no party will represent that small contingent of opposition and that is what has happened here. In the same way no party is going to support calls for homosexuality to be criminalized even though I am sure that some people hold to that view in Canada.

Guest

Yes – 2/3 of conservative Canadian oppose same sex unions.

bill@19D

says who? can you provide a poll that backs up that claim? if so when was it conducted?

Guest

Dude, you’re obviously not Canadian because it was all over the news. This has been a big deal here. Go play pseudo-intellectual with someone else when you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

bill@19D

I do know what I am talking about and have polling data to back it up. If you have polling data that points to another conclusion then please share it. support of same sex marriage is growing and that includes within the conservative party. you can not claim something different and then provide nothing to back it up besides the claim.

Guest

You lied about the poll. You copied and pasted an AMERICAN poll, as I’ve pointed out THREE TIMES already. We’re talking about Canadian conservatives. Go lie somewhere else.

bill@19D

I did not copy and paste an american poll, rather it was a Canadian poll. If you want to look at the poll go to the Wikipedia page for “Same-sex marriage in Canada” and go to the public opinion section. then look at the Forum Research poll. I don’t know were you got the idea that it was an american poll but it was not. furthermore this is the first time that you have asserted that it was an american poll, if you had made that claim before I would have corrected it before. try getting your facts straight before you go about causing people of lying.

Guest

You copied from an American Pew poll. Wiki isn’t credible. Anyone can write anything in there they want, including you. The stats and word-word-word how you presented them, including punctuation, etc. are taken from an American Pew poll. Now stop lying.

bill@19D

NO I DID NOT. I am only pointing you to Wiki becasue I can not post the link to the poll here. but if you go to that page you can follow the link right to the poll and see it for yourself. It is a form research poll from Canada. if this text ” 2015 49% of conservative aligned voters said that they supported same sex marriage while 41% said they disproved of same sex marriage. 70% of the general population supported same sex marriage. ” matches to a pew poll then please tell we what I should google to see that page. If you refuse to look at the source that I am citing then don’t accuse me of lying.

Guest

I already looked at the page, after I looked at the American Pew Research Poll that has the exact same wording that you cut-and-pasted. Funny how Canadian conservatives match number for number, word for word, for 2 different polls. Now pull the other finger.

bill@19D

again tell me what you searched for to get to the American Pew Poll becasue I can promise you that it did not say the same thing. the Canadian poll included a section for federal vote preference and Conservative was 49% support, Liberal was 72% support, NDP was 83% support, Green was 77% support, Block was 84% support, and other was at 45% support. the same break down would NOT exist for a US poll. additionally I am not aware of any US poll showing total public support at 70%. indeed from Pew research “Based on polling in 2016, a majority of Americans (55%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% who oppose it. the GOP was still 54% opposed to same sex marriage according to their poll. so there is Zero way that the number I cited were also in a US poll unless Pew research was citing the numbers from Canada.

Guest

Why are you following me around trying to tell me what’s going on in my own country? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t even know how to properly research the topic.

bill@19D

You are the one who baselessly accused me of lying and then have been completely unable to back that accusation up. I have provided both the poll I pulled from and how to get there and look at if for yourself and I says just what I originally posted, that in Canada 70% of the general population supports same sex marriage along with 48% of conservatives.

I have also provided results from the Pew Research Poll to show that they do not find the same thing in the US, but rather find lower levels of support both for the general population and also for conservatives in the US. I have explained that this is expected given that Canada has had full marriage equality for longer then the US.

In short what I posted has been backed up and is true and anyone who does the google searches and looks at what I am pointing to can see that for themselves. You claim that I am not able to properly research the topic yet I am the one supporting what I say while you are unable to do the same for your claims.

Guest

Dude, I directed posters where to find your cut-and-paste job, and it ain’t a Canadian study of Canadians. Stop following me around and stop making up stories about a country you know nothing about.

bill@19D

No you did not. I went to the most recent polling from Pew Research and I posted the results here. it does NOT match with what I posted here. Furthermore I also posted how to get to the Poll I cited and it was indeed a Canadian Poll looking at the political opinion of Canadians on the subject.

In short your claim has proven to be 100% false. you have not posted what to google to find the supposed cut and paste job becasue if you did there would be nothing there and you know it. Pew research has NEVER posted a poll finding general support for same sex marriage in the US at 70% becasue it has never been that high. back up your claims or stop making them. the Info I posted has been backed up again and again in this exchange at it clearly is valid and it also is clearly different then what was found in american polls. If I could post the links I would but all you or anyone else has to do is follow the searches that I used and you will find the exact same thing.

google “pew research form poll on gay marriage” and you will see the american numbers and you will also see that no, they do not match the Canadian numbers that I posted.

Guest

Why are you following me around with your lies?

bill@19D

How am I ” following you around”, I am replying to your responce to me. That’s how a conversation works, you reply and then I reply back. That is not following you around. Furthermore as been established multiple times now I am not lying. Anyone can go look up the polls and see what they say. I refered to a Canadian poll as I have shown over and over. I also showed what the pew poll found. So no I am not lying and your claim that I did lie has proven to be false.

Guest

Uh, no. My first comment was not to you. It was a general response to the article, but you keep following me around with an American poll while claiming it’s Canadian. Go away.

bill@19D

Your fist comment was not to me no, however the subsequent comments have been a back and forth which you are free to stop engaging in at any time. We are having a conversation and that is not me following you around. Furthermore and once again no, the poll I cited was a Canadian one. You are the one deliberately lying here, not me. I get that you do not like that conservatives are changing their minds on this issue but not liking that development does not change reality nor does lying about it.

Guest

You are, again, mischaracterizing what’s been happening, and you are harassing me by following me around with a cut-and-paste job from American Pew and lying it’s a Canadian study. Go away.

bill@19D

It is not a mischaracterization at all. I am not following you around but rather responding to the exact same conversation that we have been having. If you want to stop the conversation you can do that at any time by just not continuing to respond to it. But for you to keep the conversation going and then acuse me of harassment is absurd. It is also absurd that you continue to make the false claim that I am lying after I have already disproved that claim. The only person lying here about what I posted is you.

Guest

Anyone can search what I’ve told them to search. Now go away.

bill@19D

I already pulled up and posted what pew research found and it was not at all what I posted. They did not find that 70% of Americans support same sex marriage nor did they find that 49% of conservative voters support same sex marriage. The results I posted were Canadian. Your false claim has already been exposed as such so stop making it.

Guest

You are lying. People can search what I told them to search. Now stop following me around and go make up stories elsewhere.

bill@19D

Again no I am not lying. You never ever refute or even respond to the details I give, you just keep repeating the baseless claim that I am lying. But as long as you continue to make that absurd claim I will continue to set the record straight. I am not the one lying here, you are. The decent thing to do would be to repent and apologize.

Guest

*yawn*

bill@19D

And that is what a response looks like from someone who has been shown to be wrong but refuses to admit it. But even still I wish you a blessed day.

Guest

That is what a response looks like when someone gets tired of being lied to. Have fun living with those lies.

bill@19D

Only that can not be it given that you were not lied to. I posted the results of a Canadian poll just like I said I did. And as I said before as long as you continue to make the outrageous claim that I lied I will continue to set the record straight. At this point your just digging your hole deeper.

Guest

Here you go again.

bill@19D

I am just setting the record straight and will keep doing so as long as you keep lying about what I said. How many times I do this is entirely up to how many times you insist on telling the same lie about what I said. Meanwhile the trend of growing support for same sex marriage will continue. I expect we will especially continue to see a shift in favor of marriage equality among conservative voters now that the platform has changed.

Guest

If someone asks you what you had for breakfast, I’ll bet you’d lie about that, too.

bill@19D

A bowl of cereal, thanks. Nothing to lie about because the facts are on my side. I would not be arguing this issue if the facts were not on my side.

Guest

You’re still here? Don’t you have to go falsify some tax records or something?

bill@19D

No I do not so yes I am still here. I enjoyed watching your prime minister raise the pride flag on parliament hill. Also was happy to see the conservative contingent there for that, good bipartisan support for equality.

Guest

I can’t believe anything you say. You may have seen it, you may have enjoyed it, who knows? But since you’re now a certifiable liar, anything could be true.

bill@19D

Once again go look it up, the poll is real, it was a Canadian poll, and it did say what I said it said. Your continued lying about that is absurd.

Guest

Sure it is. Do you have someone near you? Someone you can call for help? I don’t want to hear that you hurt yourself.

bill@19D

Why on earth would I hurt myself? I am having a great day. Thanks for your concern but it is completely misplaced, I am great.

Guest

Last sentence – hmmm, another lie.

bill@19D

If you want to believe that then you go right ahead. Have a nice day.

Guest

You still here?

bill@19D

You seam to be under the misconception that I am going away. Nope, I am not going anywhere and your not going to drive me off. Sorry to disappoint.

Guest

Yeah, because that’s what trolls do. Thanks for proving what you are.

bill@19D

defending ones self from baseless comments is not trollish behavior, glad I could clear that up for you.

Guest

You can’t even clear up your own skin. Why don’t you go outside and enjoy the weather or go engage in conversation with someone who’s not familiar with your trolling?

bill@19D

so you make comments like that and then accuse me of being the troll? It is most interesting to see what kind of responses people have when faced with facts that they are unable to deal with. But as I said before have a nice day.

Guest

Dude, why are you still here then if you don’t like the discourse? I made a comment to the board, and you came on pretending to be concern troll, and wrote a big long diatribe that had nothing to do with my comment. You then proceeded to pester me with unrelated questions and pretended to know something about Canadian politics. You don’t. You lied. A colleague was reading over my shoulder and told me that you had done the same thing to him and that he felt sorry for you because you were so dumb. Sorry, but that’s the blunt truth. If you want to draw people to your viewpoint, you’re not going to do it that way.

bill@19D

I am still here becasue I think that the more civil conversation that is had on this topic the better. I reply to comments that i want to reply to, what you do from there is 100% up to you. If you do not want to answer a question then don’t, if you do not want to engage in a conversation then don’t. I did not lie at any point of this conversation. I know that lying is not the way to bring people over to my point of view but I do not lie so I do not need to worry about that.

But anyway for you to continue the conversation and then complain that I am pestering you is just silly. you want to know a magic trick? If you do not want to hear from someone you should probably not talk to them. when you talk to someone the natural course of action is that they are going to respond.

Guest

Take your own advice since you are the one who began the discourse. I suppose your posts serve comedic purposes however.

bill@19D

On the contrary, I have no problem with the conversation continuing so I have no reason to stop posting as long as you continue to respond. If I was the one complaining about the conversation continuing then it would be on me to bow out but that is not the case. btw Disqus has a reply button for a reason. when you post people may reply to that comment. that’s how it works.

Guest

You wanna talk? Okay, here goes: How old were you when you were sexually abused? Who abused you?

bill@19D

I never have been sexually abused or abused in any other way. I was fortunate to have great parents, to grow up in a good neighborhood, and to be connected to the church and fellow believers.

Guest

Uh yeah, Bill, keep up the fibs.

bill@19D

ah so now I suppose you are going to claim that you know more about my childhood then me? you know nothing about my childhood so you have zero grounds on which to claim that the statement is not true.

Guest

So your other posts were lies too? Good to know. And so your rebellion isn’t due to abuse but rather straight (pardon the pun) out rebellion? Even more damning.

bill@19D

nothing I said above would indicate that any of my other posts were lies. None of them contain any lies.

secondly no, sexual orientation is not a choice. it has nothing to do with rebellion at all, rather its just that I was sexually attracted to the same sex just like you were naturally attracted to the other sex.

Guest

There you go again…

bill@19D

There I go again….what? correcting your misrepresentations? then yes I am doing just that.

Guest

You’re not very good at this.

Edward MacGuire

Gay marriage has not been a big deal here for decades. No one (except you I guess) cares.

Get Breaking Christian News in Your Inbox!

Sign Me Up! Top Daily Top Weekly

Christian News Headlines

Keep your site fresh and your visitors coming back by featuring Christian News Network's top news stories on your site. Learn more →

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →